Taylor Swift and Conor Kennedy have sparked dating rumor. The 22-year-old country music singer and the teen son of Robert Kennedy Jr. were caught on camera getting cozy while enjoying a weekend together at the Kennedy family compound in Massachusetts.
Taylor reportedly arrived at the Hyannis Port in Cape Cod on Friday, July 27. The crooner and Conor, 18, enjoyed pizza with a group of friends. She was seen holding his hand at one point and putting her arm on his back at another. They stayed close to each other, went on a stroll for two, and jumped on a trampoline as well.
On the following day, the rumored couple was spotted having another outing on a beachside. Conor wrapped his arm around Taylor's waist and she returned the gesture by placing her hand on top of his. They later hopped on a boat and sailed with a couple of friends.
Taylor wore a terra cotta-colored dress, while Conor was clad in a t-shirt and beach short pants for the Friday outing. On the next day, she changed into a short-sleeved blouse and a matching floral midi skirt and he mirrored her casual look in a white tee and shorts.
Prior to spending time with the family at the Hyannis Port, Swift and the young Kennedy reportedly grabbed a bite at Marcella's Pizza in his hometown of Mount Kisco. According to New York Daily News, the couple went to visit Ethel Kennedy as well. E! News additionally reported the pair enjoyed ice cream in Four Seas.
Taylor is a self-proclaimed fan of the Kennedys, and she is especially fond of the widow of Robert F. Kennedy. She was invited by Rory Kennedy to the premiere of her TV movie "Ethel" at the Sundance Film Festival after meeting Conor's grandmother sometime before.
The singer and the iconic American family reportedly kept in touch afterwards, and then she began to see Conor. She enjoyed a relaxing time with the family on last fourth of July, but was rumored dating Patrick Schwarzenegger who joined the group back then.
On Teen Choice Awards red carpet later on, she told Access Hollywood, "Patrick's a friend! That's why I don't read any gossip about me because I don't want to be weirded out by who people think I'm dating. I should just warn guys (who talk to me.) ... 'This is what you can expect tomorrow on all these different blogs'."
Taylor Swift was previously linked to Joe Jonas, John Mayer, Taylor Lautner and Jake Gyllenhaal. Her representative refused to give any comment on the latest romance rumor when asked for one and so did a rep for Conor.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Libyans turn out big, then celebrate historic election
Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- After four decades of political exclusion, Libyans on Saturday night celebrated a historic election that many saw as the African nation's first steps to building a free and democratic nation.
The landmark parliamentary vote was marred in places by disruptions that prompted polling centers to close, but the overall turnout was higher than expected.
Preliminary reports indicate more than 1.6 million of the nation's 2.8 million registered voters -- or about 60% -- went to the polls, High National Election Commission chairman Nuri Khalifa Al-Abbar said late Saturday, according to the Libyan state news agency.
Votes were cast as planned at 98% of all polling stations, Al-Abbar said earlier in the day.
And by Saturday night, after the final votes were cast, there was revelry as drivers honked their horns around the capital of Tripoli as they and other Libyans rejoiced at the country's transformation over the past year.
The city's main square -- once called Green Square for Gadhafi's political philosophy outlined in his Green Book but now known as Martyr's Square for all those who fell in last year's revolution -- became a focal point for the celebrations, with it and the surrounding streets packed with cars.
"We never ... voted before, we never did elections before, so it's totally new to us," said blogger and medical student Ruwida Ashour from the eastern city of Benghazi. "It won't be easy (but) it's our country."
The last time Libya held an election was almost half a century ago and for many people, the act of casting a ballot was novel after 42 years of Moammar Gadhafi's autocratic rule.
Besides significant participation among average citizens (about 80% of the nation's 3.5 million eligible voters registered ahead of the vote), the election indicated there was strong interest among people interested in being part of the nation's fledgling government as well. More than 3,500 candidates stood in the election for a 200-seat national assembly, with the winners expected to be announced by the end of next week.
Men and women, young and old waited patiently Saturday in long lines in cities and towns across Libya -- some that were war zones only a year ago. After voting, jubilant Libyans proudly waved their right index finger smudged in purple indelible ink as proof of their participation.
Months after Gadhafi's fall, Libyans vote Saturday for a new assembly
Sizzling summer temperatures did not keep people away in Tripoli, where loudspeakers blared: "Allahu akbar" (God is great).
Hanaa bin Dallah, 32, carried her 2-month-old son Rahman with her to the polls. She was heartened by the participation of so many people, despite the weather.
"I hope my word will make a difference -- not like the past," she said.
Hawwaa BouSaida, 65, said she had never been to school in her life but was proud to be voting.
"After 42 years of not even not knowing what elections are, and were blinded, we are voting today for the first time," she said.
Akram Mohamed BinRamadan returned from exile in Britain to fight last year with the rebels. Still dressed in military fatigues, he said it was time now to stop the fighting and begin the difficult task of rebuilding the nation.
"I think it's time to take all these off," he said. "This is going to be a free country."
U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement congratulating Libyans "for another milestone on their extraordinary transition to democracy."
"After more than 40 years in which Libya was in the grip of a dictator, today's historic election underscores that the future of Libya is in the hands of the Libyan people," Obama said. "...As they begin this new chapter, the Libyan people can count on the continued friendship and support of the United States."
More than 13,000 soldiers were on the streets Saturday. But not all went smoothly.
Two polling centers were set ablaze in the eastern city of Benghazi, said Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, head of the EU election assessment mission. And in two other cities, polls did not open until 2 p.m. (six hours before they were set to close).
In the eastern city of Ajdabiya, five polling centers opened but four others on the outskirts did not.
On Friday, anti-aircraft fire hit a Libyan air force helicopter transporting ballot boxes from the eastern city of Benghazi to nearby areas, the Interior Ministry said. One person was killed. It was unclear who was behind the attack.
And protesters earlier this week attacked a warehouse and torched ballots and other election materials.
Tunisia hands former Gadhafi PM over to Libya
This was one of several anti-election incidents staged by Libyans in the east who see an unequal distribution of seats in the national assembly. The 200 seats are allocated by population, reserving 100 for the western Tripolitania, 60 for Cyrenaica in the east, and 40 for the south.
The mistrust stems from the many years of Gadhafi's rule, under which the eastern region felt largely neglected and marginalized. Benghazi emerged as the cradle of the Libyan uprising but many of its residents now feel their revolution has been usurped by the National Transitional Council based in Tripoli.
Mohammed al-Sayeh, a member of the National Transitional Council, dismissed the disruptions as "minor" and said there was no lack of trust between east and west.
"Libya will be always united," he said. "It is the first fair and legitimate election."
Authorities flew in fresh ballots printed in the United Arab Emirates, but the shipment did not arrive in time for all the Ajdabiya polls to open.
Seven other polling stations in and around Benghazi were also closed due to pro-federalist threats against voters.
As the polls came to a close Saturday evening, Lambsdorff said it was too early to tell whether the election had been compromised by the violence.
"Again, we are talking about single isolated incidents," Lambsdorff said.
Saturday's vote is sure to be a litmus test for post-Gadhafi Libya. The new national assembly will be tasked with appointing a transitional government and crafting a constitution.
The nation's new leaders, however, will have their work cut out for them as they begin a new, more democratic era.
Amnesty International published a scathing report this week about what it described as lawlessness in Libya, with the advocacy group urging the nation's authorities to establish a functioning judiciary and rein in revolutionary militias that are accused of committing a plethora of human rights violations.
The disparate groups came together to topple Gadhafi but remain divided along regional lines. More than 200,000 Libyans are still armed and often operate outside of the law, according to Amnesty.
Rights group: Rein in Libyan militias
Security is just one of many obstacles.
The new government must figure out how to unify the country as it moves forward. That includes a reconciliation process for Gadhafi loyalists.
And there is the task of rebuilding a nation ravaged by dictatorship and last year's conflict.
The National Transitional Council, Libya's de facto rulers since Gadhafi was captured and killed in October, inherited a land where few civil institutions existed. The new government will have to create a functioning society out of that vacuum.
Libyans are clamoring for basic services. Heaps of trash litter roads because of the lack of proper disposal services, and assuring adequate health care is a priority for many.
Ahmed Shalabi, a Libyan doctor pursuing post-graduate training in Britain, said Gadhafi systematically destroyed Libyan institutions. From health care to education, the country has to start from scratch.
He said he was ecstatic and incredulous to be casting a ballot, a notion that seemed implausible all his life. That was the first step, he said, to severing Libya from Gadhafi's legacy.
And after that?
"The constitution. The constitution. The constitution," Shalabi said. "If we get that right, everything else will fall into place."
Campaign posters and billboards in Libyan cities and towns advertised all the candidates running. Most are unknown to Libyans, much like the political process itself. Gadhafi was not one to cultivate political culture.
But Libyans have high hopes for their future.
"If Libya's issues are a mosaic, I believe I hold one piece of it," said Awziya Shweigi, one of the thousands of candidates. "It might be a small one, but an effective one that completes it."
A geneticist by trade, she has been working to identify the bodies of those who died in Libya's eight-month uprising. Now, she said she wants to do more.
Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has been in Libya ahead of the parliamentary vote, said he was guardedly optimistic about Libya's transition.
"The glaring shortfalls in the transition are the lack of development in the security sector and the continued activity of powerful militias," Wehrey wrote on the think tank's website.
"It's tempting on the surface to see the situation on the ground as chaotic and alarming with armed men roving the streets. But it's not all bad news, in many cases the militias actually maintain a degree of discipline, provide pre-election security, and work with the government to police their own areas -- so things are being kept under control, at least for now. The key question is how these militias will react to the election results and the subsequent distribution of power among tribes and towns."
Shweigi said she may not be an expert on defense or the national budget, but as a woman, she represents a large part of Libyan society. She is a widow and mother of six, and said her experience with family will make her an asset.
She has been campaigning on the streets, fully covered in Islamic dress, talking to women -- and men.
That's a huge change in this Islamic nation, said Samer Muscati of Human Rights Watch.
"Previously we would not have as many pictures of women outside in public spaces, and now that's becoming a normal event at least in Tripoli and some other areas as well," he said. "So I think this election is changing women's participation not only in politics but also in a larger scale."
Shweigi said she doesn't expect to win Saturday.
But she, like so many other Libyans, feels she was born again after Gadhafi was gone. And she wanted to experience the fruits of the revolution.
Are Libya's elections premature?
The landmark parliamentary vote was marred in places by disruptions that prompted polling centers to close, but the overall turnout was higher than expected.
Preliminary reports indicate more than 1.6 million of the nation's 2.8 million registered voters -- or about 60% -- went to the polls, High National Election Commission chairman Nuri Khalifa Al-Abbar said late Saturday, according to the Libyan state news agency.
Votes were cast as planned at 98% of all polling stations, Al-Abbar said earlier in the day.
And by Saturday night, after the final votes were cast, there was revelry as drivers honked their horns around the capital of Tripoli as they and other Libyans rejoiced at the country's transformation over the past year.
The city's main square -- once called Green Square for Gadhafi's political philosophy outlined in his Green Book but now known as Martyr's Square for all those who fell in last year's revolution -- became a focal point for the celebrations, with it and the surrounding streets packed with cars.
"We never ... voted before, we never did elections before, so it's totally new to us," said blogger and medical student Ruwida Ashour from the eastern city of Benghazi. "It won't be easy (but) it's our country."
The last time Libya held an election was almost half a century ago and for many people, the act of casting a ballot was novel after 42 years of Moammar Gadhafi's autocratic rule.
Besides significant participation among average citizens (about 80% of the nation's 3.5 million eligible voters registered ahead of the vote), the election indicated there was strong interest among people interested in being part of the nation's fledgling government as well. More than 3,500 candidates stood in the election for a 200-seat national assembly, with the winners expected to be announced by the end of next week.
Men and women, young and old waited patiently Saturday in long lines in cities and towns across Libya -- some that were war zones only a year ago. After voting, jubilant Libyans proudly waved their right index finger smudged in purple indelible ink as proof of their participation.
Months after Gadhafi's fall, Libyans vote Saturday for a new assembly
Sizzling summer temperatures did not keep people away in Tripoli, where loudspeakers blared: "Allahu akbar" (God is great).
Hanaa bin Dallah, 32, carried her 2-month-old son Rahman with her to the polls. She was heartened by the participation of so many people, despite the weather.
"I hope my word will make a difference -- not like the past," she said.
Hawwaa BouSaida, 65, said she had never been to school in her life but was proud to be voting.
"After 42 years of not even not knowing what elections are, and were blinded, we are voting today for the first time," she said.
Akram Mohamed BinRamadan returned from exile in Britain to fight last year with the rebels. Still dressed in military fatigues, he said it was time now to stop the fighting and begin the difficult task of rebuilding the nation.
"I think it's time to take all these off," he said. "This is going to be a free country."
U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement congratulating Libyans "for another milestone on their extraordinary transition to democracy."
"After more than 40 years in which Libya was in the grip of a dictator, today's historic election underscores that the future of Libya is in the hands of the Libyan people," Obama said. "...As they begin this new chapter, the Libyan people can count on the continued friendship and support of the United States."
More than 13,000 soldiers were on the streets Saturday. But not all went smoothly.
Two polling centers were set ablaze in the eastern city of Benghazi, said Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, head of the EU election assessment mission. And in two other cities, polls did not open until 2 p.m. (six hours before they were set to close).
In the eastern city of Ajdabiya, five polling centers opened but four others on the outskirts did not.
On Friday, anti-aircraft fire hit a Libyan air force helicopter transporting ballot boxes from the eastern city of Benghazi to nearby areas, the Interior Ministry said. One person was killed. It was unclear who was behind the attack.
And protesters earlier this week attacked a warehouse and torched ballots and other election materials.
Tunisia hands former Gadhafi PM over to Libya
This was one of several anti-election incidents staged by Libyans in the east who see an unequal distribution of seats in the national assembly. The 200 seats are allocated by population, reserving 100 for the western Tripolitania, 60 for Cyrenaica in the east, and 40 for the south.
The mistrust stems from the many years of Gadhafi's rule, under which the eastern region felt largely neglected and marginalized. Benghazi emerged as the cradle of the Libyan uprising but many of its residents now feel their revolution has been usurped by the National Transitional Council based in Tripoli.
Mohammed al-Sayeh, a member of the National Transitional Council, dismissed the disruptions as "minor" and said there was no lack of trust between east and west.
"Libya will be always united," he said. "It is the first fair and legitimate election."
Authorities flew in fresh ballots printed in the United Arab Emirates, but the shipment did not arrive in time for all the Ajdabiya polls to open.
Seven other polling stations in and around Benghazi were also closed due to pro-federalist threats against voters.
As the polls came to a close Saturday evening, Lambsdorff said it was too early to tell whether the election had been compromised by the violence.
"Again, we are talking about single isolated incidents," Lambsdorff said.
Saturday's vote is sure to be a litmus test for post-Gadhafi Libya. The new national assembly will be tasked with appointing a transitional government and crafting a constitution.
The nation's new leaders, however, will have their work cut out for them as they begin a new, more democratic era.
Amnesty International published a scathing report this week about what it described as lawlessness in Libya, with the advocacy group urging the nation's authorities to establish a functioning judiciary and rein in revolutionary militias that are accused of committing a plethora of human rights violations.
The disparate groups came together to topple Gadhafi but remain divided along regional lines. More than 200,000 Libyans are still armed and often operate outside of the law, according to Amnesty.
Rights group: Rein in Libyan militias
Security is just one of many obstacles.
The new government must figure out how to unify the country as it moves forward. That includes a reconciliation process for Gadhafi loyalists.
And there is the task of rebuilding a nation ravaged by dictatorship and last year's conflict.
The National Transitional Council, Libya's de facto rulers since Gadhafi was captured and killed in October, inherited a land where few civil institutions existed. The new government will have to create a functioning society out of that vacuum.
Libyans are clamoring for basic services. Heaps of trash litter roads because of the lack of proper disposal services, and assuring adequate health care is a priority for many.
Ahmed Shalabi, a Libyan doctor pursuing post-graduate training in Britain, said Gadhafi systematically destroyed Libyan institutions. From health care to education, the country has to start from scratch.
He said he was ecstatic and incredulous to be casting a ballot, a notion that seemed implausible all his life. That was the first step, he said, to severing Libya from Gadhafi's legacy.
And after that?
"The constitution. The constitution. The constitution," Shalabi said. "If we get that right, everything else will fall into place."
Campaign posters and billboards in Libyan cities and towns advertised all the candidates running. Most are unknown to Libyans, much like the political process itself. Gadhafi was not one to cultivate political culture.
But Libyans have high hopes for their future.
"If Libya's issues are a mosaic, I believe I hold one piece of it," said Awziya Shweigi, one of the thousands of candidates. "It might be a small one, but an effective one that completes it."
A geneticist by trade, she has been working to identify the bodies of those who died in Libya's eight-month uprising. Now, she said she wants to do more.
Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has been in Libya ahead of the parliamentary vote, said he was guardedly optimistic about Libya's transition.
"The glaring shortfalls in the transition are the lack of development in the security sector and the continued activity of powerful militias," Wehrey wrote on the think tank's website.
"It's tempting on the surface to see the situation on the ground as chaotic and alarming with armed men roving the streets. But it's not all bad news, in many cases the militias actually maintain a degree of discipline, provide pre-election security, and work with the government to police their own areas -- so things are being kept under control, at least for now. The key question is how these militias will react to the election results and the subsequent distribution of power among tribes and towns."
Shweigi said she may not be an expert on defense or the national budget, but as a woman, she represents a large part of Libyan society. She is a widow and mother of six, and said her experience with family will make her an asset.
She has been campaigning on the streets, fully covered in Islamic dress, talking to women -- and men.
That's a huge change in this Islamic nation, said Samer Muscati of Human Rights Watch.
"Previously we would not have as many pictures of women outside in public spaces, and now that's becoming a normal event at least in Tripoli and some other areas as well," he said. "So I think this election is changing women's participation not only in politics but also in a larger scale."
Shweigi said she doesn't expect to win Saturday.
But she, like so many other Libyans, feels she was born again after Gadhafi was gone. And she wanted to experience the fruits of the revolution.
Are Libya's elections premature?
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Syrian army shelling 'kills at least 200' in Tremseh
Opposition activists quoted residents as saying the village was attacked with helicopter gunships and tanks.
Pro-government Shabiha militia later went in on foot and carried out execution-style killings, they said.
State media said "terrorist groups" had carried out a massacre to raise tensions ahead of a UN Security Council meeting on the Syria observer mission.
If it is confirmed, the Tremseh attack would be one of the bloodiest single events in the Syria conflict.
Some 16,000 people are thought to have been killed since the uprising against Bashar al-Assad's regime began in March 2011.
High-level defection
Reports suggest the army was trying to take back Tremseh after it had fallen into rebel hands.
The Revolution Leadership Council of Hama told the Reuters news agency that most of the dead in Tremseh were civilians. Protests condemning the attack have been reported in Damascus, Idlib and Hama.
Earlier on Thursday, Syria's ambassador to Iraq Nawaf Fares announced his defection, following in the footsteps of a former senior general who escaped the country earlier this week.
Iraqi officials have said Mr Fares, who has publicly declared his support for the opposition, is in Qatar.
Syrian forces also shelled the suburbs of Damascus later in the day in an apparent offensive against rebel fighters.
Western nations are pressing the UN to threaten Syria with sanctions as it considers renewing the mandate for its observer mission in Syria which expires on 20 July.
They want a 10-day ultimatum to be part of a Security Council resolution on the future of the UN's observer mission in the country. A new resolution must be passed before the mission's mandate ends on Friday next week.
China and Russia continue to oppose any moves to threaten Damascus with further sanctions ahead of the 20 July deadline.
The mission had a 90-day remit to monitor a truce, but fighting has continued largely unabated.
The truce formed part of a six-point peace plan brokered by UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who has called for "clear consequences" for the Syrian government and rebels if the ceasefire is not observed.
Pro-government Shabiha militia later went in on foot and carried out execution-style killings, they said.
State media said "terrorist groups" had carried out a massacre to raise tensions ahead of a UN Security Council meeting on the Syria observer mission.
If it is confirmed, the Tremseh attack would be one of the bloodiest single events in the Syria conflict.
Some 16,000 people are thought to have been killed since the uprising against Bashar al-Assad's regime began in March 2011.
High-level defection
Reports suggest the army was trying to take back Tremseh after it had fallen into rebel hands.
The Revolution Leadership Council of Hama told the Reuters news agency that most of the dead in Tremseh were civilians. Protests condemning the attack have been reported in Damascus, Idlib and Hama.
Earlier on Thursday, Syria's ambassador to Iraq Nawaf Fares announced his defection, following in the footsteps of a former senior general who escaped the country earlier this week.
Iraqi officials have said Mr Fares, who has publicly declared his support for the opposition, is in Qatar.
Syrian forces also shelled the suburbs of Damascus later in the day in an apparent offensive against rebel fighters.
Western nations are pressing the UN to threaten Syria with sanctions as it considers renewing the mandate for its observer mission in Syria which expires on 20 July.
They want a 10-day ultimatum to be part of a Security Council resolution on the future of the UN's observer mission in the country. A new resolution must be passed before the mission's mandate ends on Friday next week.
China and Russia continue to oppose any moves to threaten Damascus with further sanctions ahead of the 20 July deadline.
The mission had a 90-day remit to monitor a truce, but fighting has continued largely unabated.
The truce formed part of a six-point peace plan brokered by UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who has called for "clear consequences" for the Syrian government and rebels if the ceasefire is not observed.
Dogs may protect babies from some infections
Babies who spend time around pet dogs have fewer ear infections and respiratory ailments than those whose homes are animal-free, said a study released on Monday.
The study, published in the US journal Pediatrics, did not say why but suggested that being around a dog that spends at least part
of its day outdoors may boost a child's immune system in the first year of life.
Cats, too, seemed to convey some protection to babies, though the effect observed was weaker than with dogs.
The research was based on 397 children in Finland whose parents made diary entries each week recording the state of their child's health during the infant's first year, from nine weeks to 52 weeks of age.
Overall, babies in homes with cats or dogs were about 30 percent less likely to have respiratory infectious symptoms -- which included cough, wheezing, rhinitis (stuffy or runny nose) and fever -- and about half as likely to get ear infections.
"If children had dog or cat contacts at home, they were significantly healthier during the study period," said the study led by experts at Kuopio University Hospital in Finland.
The most protective association was seen in children who had a dog inside at home for up to six hours a day, compared to children who did not have any dogs or who had dogs that were always outside.
"We offer preliminary evidence that dog ownership may be protective against respiratory tract infections during the first year of life," said the study. "We speculate that animal contacts could help to mature the immunologic system, leading to more composed immunologic response and shorter duration of infections."
The improvement was significant, even after researchers ruled out other factors that could boost infection risk, such as not having been breastfed, attending daycare, being raised by smokers or parents with asthma, or having older siblings in the household.
In addition to having less frequent ear infections and respiratory infections, babies near dogs tended to need fewer courses of antibiotics compared to those who were reared in pet-free households, it said.
Previous research has shown conflicting results, with some studies finding no benefit for young children being around furry pets and others finding that animal contact appears to offer some protection against colds and stomach ailments.
The study authors said their research differs from previous analyses because it focuses solely on the first postnatal year and does not include older children.
The study, published in the US journal Pediatrics, did not say why but suggested that being around a dog that spends at least part
of its day outdoors may boost a child's immune system in the first year of life.
Cats, too, seemed to convey some protection to babies, though the effect observed was weaker than with dogs.
The research was based on 397 children in Finland whose parents made diary entries each week recording the state of their child's health during the infant's first year, from nine weeks to 52 weeks of age.
Overall, babies in homes with cats or dogs were about 30 percent less likely to have respiratory infectious symptoms -- which included cough, wheezing, rhinitis (stuffy or runny nose) and fever -- and about half as likely to get ear infections.
"If children had dog or cat contacts at home, they were significantly healthier during the study period," said the study led by experts at Kuopio University Hospital in Finland.
The most protective association was seen in children who had a dog inside at home for up to six hours a day, compared to children who did not have any dogs or who had dogs that were always outside.
"We offer preliminary evidence that dog ownership may be protective against respiratory tract infections during the first year of life," said the study. "We speculate that animal contacts could help to mature the immunologic system, leading to more composed immunologic response and shorter duration of infections."
The improvement was significant, even after researchers ruled out other factors that could boost infection risk, such as not having been breastfed, attending daycare, being raised by smokers or parents with asthma, or having older siblings in the household.
In addition to having less frequent ear infections and respiratory infections, babies near dogs tended to need fewer courses of antibiotics compared to those who were reared in pet-free households, it said.
Previous research has shown conflicting results, with some studies finding no benefit for young children being around furry pets and others finding that animal contact appears to offer some protection against colds and stomach ailments.
The study authors said their research differs from previous analyses because it focuses solely on the first postnatal year and does not include older children.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Sarah Palin thanks God and Supreme Court for healthcare ruling
Sarah Palin thanked the Supreme Court and the Almighty this morning after the high court ruled in favor of President Obama’s healthcare reform law.
Why the contrarian reaction from a conservative who has railed against the law, and even pushed the long-debunked claim that bureaucratic “death panels” will make life-and-death decisions about the elderly and the disabled?
The former Alaska governor is making an entirely political calculation that the survival of the healthcare reform law will spell doom for Democrats in November.
“Thank you, SCOTUS,” wrote Palin on her Facebook page. “This Obamacare ruling fires up the troops as America’s eyes are opened. Thank God.”
Palin, who has not held office for three years but regularly appears on Fox News as a political commentator and is a favorite of tea party groups, seized on the Supreme Court’s decision as proof that the Obama administration has curtailed personal liberty. Like many Obamacare opponents, she focused on the court’s rationale for upholding the law as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to tax. That, she claimed, proves the president has broken his campaign promises not to raise taxes on the middle class.
“Obama promised the American people this wasn’t a tax and that he’d never raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000,” wrote Palin. “We now see that this is the largest tax increase in history. It will slam every business owner and every one of the 50% of Americans who currently pay their taxes. The other 50% are being deceived if they think they’re going to get a free ride – because Medicaid is broke. Recipients of Obama’s 'free health care' will have fewer choices and less accessibility. Trust me – this much more expensive health care WILL be rationed; to claim otherwise defies all economic and common sense.”
Actually, the law calls for a tax penalty only on those who choose that option by refusing to buy insurance. The tax penalty would not apply to those who cannot afford health insurance and will not be applied to anyone who purchases health insurance. Only those who can afford health insurance and refuse to buy it are subject to the tax penalty, the rationale being that those people will inevitably need healthcare and those costs otherwise would be passed on to the insured in the form of higher premiums. Obama has argued that people who behave responsibly should not be forced to pay the healthcare bills of those who do not.
Still, Palin called upon Congress to “act immediately to repeal this terrible new tax on the American people.... We the People did not ask for this tax, we do not want this tax, and we can’t afford this tax. This is not an answer to America’s health care challenges.”
Palin did not offer any solutions to the problem of rising healthcare costs, nor any ideas about how to provide health insurance for the millions of Americans who lack it.
Instead, as she often does, she employed the rhetoric of battle. “We will not retreat on this,” she wrote. “A newly elected legislative branch is key to defending our Republic and fundamentally restoring all that is good in America.”
Echoing the sentiment of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney earlier in the day, she urged supporters to take their frustration to the ballot box.
“It’s time, again, for patriotic Americans to rise up to protest this obvious infringement on our economic and personal freedom,” wrote Palin. “November is just around the corner. Today, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Obamacare. In November, We the People will issue ours.”
Why the contrarian reaction from a conservative who has railed against the law, and even pushed the long-debunked claim that bureaucratic “death panels” will make life-and-death decisions about the elderly and the disabled?
The former Alaska governor is making an entirely political calculation that the survival of the healthcare reform law will spell doom for Democrats in November.
“Thank you, SCOTUS,” wrote Palin on her Facebook page. “This Obamacare ruling fires up the troops as America’s eyes are opened. Thank God.”
Palin, who has not held office for three years but regularly appears on Fox News as a political commentator and is a favorite of tea party groups, seized on the Supreme Court’s decision as proof that the Obama administration has curtailed personal liberty. Like many Obamacare opponents, she focused on the court’s rationale for upholding the law as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to tax. That, she claimed, proves the president has broken his campaign promises not to raise taxes on the middle class.
“Obama promised the American people this wasn’t a tax and that he’d never raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000,” wrote Palin. “We now see that this is the largest tax increase in history. It will slam every business owner and every one of the 50% of Americans who currently pay their taxes. The other 50% are being deceived if they think they’re going to get a free ride – because Medicaid is broke. Recipients of Obama’s 'free health care' will have fewer choices and less accessibility. Trust me – this much more expensive health care WILL be rationed; to claim otherwise defies all economic and common sense.”
Actually, the law calls for a tax penalty only on those who choose that option by refusing to buy insurance. The tax penalty would not apply to those who cannot afford health insurance and will not be applied to anyone who purchases health insurance. Only those who can afford health insurance and refuse to buy it are subject to the tax penalty, the rationale being that those people will inevitably need healthcare and those costs otherwise would be passed on to the insured in the form of higher premiums. Obama has argued that people who behave responsibly should not be forced to pay the healthcare bills of those who do not.
Still, Palin called upon Congress to “act immediately to repeal this terrible new tax on the American people.... We the People did not ask for this tax, we do not want this tax, and we can’t afford this tax. This is not an answer to America’s health care challenges.”
Palin did not offer any solutions to the problem of rising healthcare costs, nor any ideas about how to provide health insurance for the millions of Americans who lack it.
Instead, as she often does, she employed the rhetoric of battle. “We will not retreat on this,” she wrote. “A newly elected legislative branch is key to defending our Republic and fundamentally restoring all that is good in America.”
Echoing the sentiment of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney earlier in the day, she urged supporters to take their frustration to the ballot box.
“It’s time, again, for patriotic Americans to rise up to protest this obvious infringement on our economic and personal freedom,” wrote Palin. “November is just around the corner. Today, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Obamacare. In November, We the People will issue ours.”
Embattled Dems diverge From Obama on taxes
President Barack Obama’s renewed push to raise taxes on people who make more than $250,000
is facing some strong head winds: Democrats running for Congress in 2012.
Several Democrats in critical House and Senate races say they prefer raising taxes on
people who make more than $1 million, the latest example of how the president and
vulnerable Democrats are mounting diverging campaigns just four months from Election Day.
Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson’s “favored” position is to permanently extend the
Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $1 million, according to his office. Democrat
Heidi Heitkamp, the North Dakota Senate candidate, also wants to extend the tax cuts for
those making less than $1 million. Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who’s running again in
his home state, “believes the $250,000 limit is too low but is evaluating how specific
proposals would affect the budget,” his campaign spokesman said.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Monday she is “open” to extending all the tax cuts for
those who earn up to $1 million if it’s part of a comprehensive deal to rein in the
deficit. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) supports extending tax relief for those families
earning up to $1 million, though she said she’s also “open” to all middle-class tax
relief and backs the president’s latest call.
Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine, the former chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, prefers a $500,000 threshold. Democratic Rep. Kathy Hochul, a top GOP target in
her upstate New York House race, wrote to House and Senate leaders on Monday asking for a
prompt vote to permanently extend tax rates for the middle class, noting that she, like
Kaine, believed it should be set at $500,000.
The clear difference with the White House underscores how Democrats on the front lines of
their congressional campaigns are not afraid to buck their party’s leader on even some of
the most high-profile issues of the election.
The divergence can be seen on other fronts as well: A handful of vulnerable Democrats are
expected to vote in favor of repealing Obama’s health care law when it comes up for a
symbolic vote Wednesday in the House. Coal-state Democrats have been openly criticizing the
president on energy policy. And several Democratic lawmakers in tough races are bowing out
of their party’s three-day convention in September, believing that physical distance from
the president during the convention may help them politically.
The mixed messages also represent a sharp shift in the tax debate in recent months. While
Obama has consistently called for tax increases on those earning more than $250,000 dating
to his 2008 campaign, Democrats in Congress have focused on raising taxes on families
earning more than $1 million.
Proponents of the so-called millionaires’ tax — led in part by New York Sen. Chuck
Schumer — believe it’s an easier pitch to make to swing voters, especially near major
cities where a $250,000 income may not stretch as far as in other parts of the country. The
argument, they argued, has effectively blunted the GOP attack that the tax increases would
hurt small businesses, though Schumer dropped his objection to the president’s latest
proposal, sources said Monday.
Obama has embraced the millionaires’ tax as well, agreeing to include it as a way to pay
for his American Jobs Act last fall and pushing the so-called Buffett rule that would
impose a minimum 30 percent tax on those earning more than $1 million.
But by renewing his call Monday to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 for one
year, Obama risks reopening party divisions that appeared to be smoothed over.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who supports the Buffett rule but voted in 2010 against letting
the tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000, said people from his state are “
tired of temporary solutions to our long-term problems.”
“While I haven’t reviewed the administration’s proposal, it’s time for both sides to
stop playing political games and instead do what the people sent us here to do: Put our
financial house in order and leave America better off for the next generation.”
is facing some strong head winds: Democrats running for Congress in 2012.
Several Democrats in critical House and Senate races say they prefer raising taxes on
people who make more than $1 million, the latest example of how the president and
vulnerable Democrats are mounting diverging campaigns just four months from Election Day.
Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson’s “favored” position is to permanently extend the
Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $1 million, according to his office. Democrat
Heidi Heitkamp, the North Dakota Senate candidate, also wants to extend the tax cuts for
those making less than $1 million. Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who’s running again in
his home state, “believes the $250,000 limit is too low but is evaluating how specific
proposals would affect the budget,” his campaign spokesman said.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Monday she is “open” to extending all the tax cuts for
those who earn up to $1 million if it’s part of a comprehensive deal to rein in the
deficit. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) supports extending tax relief for those families
earning up to $1 million, though she said she’s also “open” to all middle-class tax
relief and backs the president’s latest call.
Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine, the former chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, prefers a $500,000 threshold. Democratic Rep. Kathy Hochul, a top GOP target in
her upstate New York House race, wrote to House and Senate leaders on Monday asking for a
prompt vote to permanently extend tax rates for the middle class, noting that she, like
Kaine, believed it should be set at $500,000.
The clear difference with the White House underscores how Democrats on the front lines of
their congressional campaigns are not afraid to buck their party’s leader on even some of
the most high-profile issues of the election.
The divergence can be seen on other fronts as well: A handful of vulnerable Democrats are
expected to vote in favor of repealing Obama’s health care law when it comes up for a
symbolic vote Wednesday in the House. Coal-state Democrats have been openly criticizing the
president on energy policy. And several Democratic lawmakers in tough races are bowing out
of their party’s three-day convention in September, believing that physical distance from
the president during the convention may help them politically.
The mixed messages also represent a sharp shift in the tax debate in recent months. While
Obama has consistently called for tax increases on those earning more than $250,000 dating
to his 2008 campaign, Democrats in Congress have focused on raising taxes on families
earning more than $1 million.
Proponents of the so-called millionaires’ tax — led in part by New York Sen. Chuck
Schumer — believe it’s an easier pitch to make to swing voters, especially near major
cities where a $250,000 income may not stretch as far as in other parts of the country. The
argument, they argued, has effectively blunted the GOP attack that the tax increases would
hurt small businesses, though Schumer dropped his objection to the president’s latest
proposal, sources said Monday.
Obama has embraced the millionaires’ tax as well, agreeing to include it as a way to pay
for his American Jobs Act last fall and pushing the so-called Buffett rule that would
impose a minimum 30 percent tax on those earning more than $1 million.
But by renewing his call Monday to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 for one
year, Obama risks reopening party divisions that appeared to be smoothed over.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who supports the Buffett rule but voted in 2010 against letting
the tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000, said people from his state are “
tired of temporary solutions to our long-term problems.”
“While I haven’t reviewed the administration’s proposal, it’s time for both sides to
stop playing political games and instead do what the people sent us here to do: Put our
financial house in order and leave America better off for the next generation.”
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
It's My Office and I'll Cry If I Want To
Several years ago, Dr. William Frey met with a team of doctors, scientists, and hospital administrators about plans to “head up a new department,” as he put it. Frey, who is now the director of the Alzheimer’s Research Center at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., knew that the ambitious medical project required a lot of advance planning. “We’d scheduled this organizational meeting several weeks in advance and we each had agreed to do things to prepare for it,” he says. “I said I’d do X and Y, another physician said he’d do A, B, and C.” But when the group met, the second physician hadn’t done his homework. He tried to pass his unpreparedness off on a subordinate, and berated her in front of the entire committee even though she wasn’t to blame.
“He starts yelling at this woman administrator, saying how come you didn’t do this or that,” Frey recalls, “She was sitting at the table and she was wearing glasses, I remember. As he yelled at her, she didn’t say anything, but you could see these tears coming down her cheeks under her glasses.” As soon as the physician noticed the tears, he stopped. He apologized. He admitted the fault was his. Frey was fascinated. “Clearly these tears communicated something in that workplace situation very effectively,” he says.
Frey remembers the crying administrator so clearly because she was exhibiting something he’d spent years researching: why we cry. Although Frey is now known primarily for his Alzheimer’s work, his first high-profile research subject was the composition and purpose of human tears. Until the 1980s, when Frey published his findings on the topic—along with the 1985 book Crying: The Mystery of Tears, now out of print—scientists knew very little about our sobbing. If someone cried too much, too often, or in an inappropriate situation, he or she was just considered weak. This was a problem for many women who’d entered the workforce.
“When I started my first banking job [in 1977], I was explicitly told, don’t let them see you cry,” says Anne Kreamer, a former top media executive who is now the author of It’s Always Personal: Emotion in the New Workplace. “Countless women I knew were told this, from doctors doing their internships to other women in business. You cannot show this side of yourself. It’ll be considered a weakness.” Back then, Kreamer and her peers were pushing against a glass ceiling significantly lower and thicker than the one today. They tried to conform to the dominant male-oriented work culture that had already been created (case in point: that brief but unfortunate fascination with shoulder pads), but sometimes they just couldn’t help it. They cried.
According to Frey’s research, adult women cry four times as often as men. But it’s not because we’re wimps or because we more clearly grasp the fragility of the human condition. (Or at least, I don’t.) The answer, as with everything, has to do with science.
Men’s and women’s tear ducts are anatomically different. Women also have higher levels of the hormone prolactin, which promotes lactation and has been associated with an increased tendency to cry. Prolactin levels also rise when a woman is menstruating, pregnant, or has recently given birth. Great.
Similarly, testosterone—of which men have more—has been associated with a decreased tendency to tear up. Different people have different prolactin and testosterone levels, which may partly explain why some people are self-described criers, why others can watch Old Yeller tear-free, and why my roommate cried at work last week over Buzzfeed’s “21 Pictures That Will Restore Your Faith In Humanity” list.
“Those lists always get me, I have to keep walking away from my desk so I calm down,” my roommate told me. She agreed to be interviewed for this article but refused to let me print her full name in case someone Googles her and learns how sappy she is. So I’ll just call her by her nickname: Ol’ Weepy-Face. Just kidding, it’s Mazz.
Mazz works in the fashion industry in Manhattan and has cried so many times at work that she’s lost count. “It happens at least once a week,” she admits. Usually her tears are related to something she’s watched or read on the Internet, although breakups and personal drama have been past instigators as well. “I cry when I’m sad and I cry when I’m too happy—basically any emotional extreme and I’ll cry,” she explains. Sometimes she seeks privacy in the bathroom. Sometimes she’ll stay at her desk and hope no one notices. “Yeah, I silently weep to myself in the middle of the office,” she says. “No big deal.”
“He starts yelling at this woman administrator, saying how come you didn’t do this or that,” Frey recalls, “She was sitting at the table and she was wearing glasses, I remember. As he yelled at her, she didn’t say anything, but you could see these tears coming down her cheeks under her glasses.” As soon as the physician noticed the tears, he stopped. He apologized. He admitted the fault was his. Frey was fascinated. “Clearly these tears communicated something in that workplace situation very effectively,” he says.
Frey remembers the crying administrator so clearly because she was exhibiting something he’d spent years researching: why we cry. Although Frey is now known primarily for his Alzheimer’s work, his first high-profile research subject was the composition and purpose of human tears. Until the 1980s, when Frey published his findings on the topic—along with the 1985 book Crying: The Mystery of Tears, now out of print—scientists knew very little about our sobbing. If someone cried too much, too often, or in an inappropriate situation, he or she was just considered weak. This was a problem for many women who’d entered the workforce.
“When I started my first banking job [in 1977], I was explicitly told, don’t let them see you cry,” says Anne Kreamer, a former top media executive who is now the author of It’s Always Personal: Emotion in the New Workplace. “Countless women I knew were told this, from doctors doing their internships to other women in business. You cannot show this side of yourself. It’ll be considered a weakness.” Back then, Kreamer and her peers were pushing against a glass ceiling significantly lower and thicker than the one today. They tried to conform to the dominant male-oriented work culture that had already been created (case in point: that brief but unfortunate fascination with shoulder pads), but sometimes they just couldn’t help it. They cried.
According to Frey’s research, adult women cry four times as often as men. But it’s not because we’re wimps or because we more clearly grasp the fragility of the human condition. (Or at least, I don’t.) The answer, as with everything, has to do with science.
Men’s and women’s tear ducts are anatomically different. Women also have higher levels of the hormone prolactin, which promotes lactation and has been associated with an increased tendency to cry. Prolactin levels also rise when a woman is menstruating, pregnant, or has recently given birth. Great.
Similarly, testosterone—of which men have more—has been associated with a decreased tendency to tear up. Different people have different prolactin and testosterone levels, which may partly explain why some people are self-described criers, why others can watch Old Yeller tear-free, and why my roommate cried at work last week over Buzzfeed’s “21 Pictures That Will Restore Your Faith In Humanity” list.
“Those lists always get me, I have to keep walking away from my desk so I calm down,” my roommate told me. She agreed to be interviewed for this article but refused to let me print her full name in case someone Googles her and learns how sappy she is. So I’ll just call her by her nickname: Ol’ Weepy-Face. Just kidding, it’s Mazz.
Mazz works in the fashion industry in Manhattan and has cried so many times at work that she’s lost count. “It happens at least once a week,” she admits. Usually her tears are related to something she’s watched or read on the Internet, although breakups and personal drama have been past instigators as well. “I cry when I’m sad and I cry when I’m too happy—basically any emotional extreme and I’ll cry,” she explains. Sometimes she seeks privacy in the bathroom. Sometimes she’ll stay at her desk and hope no one notices. “Yeah, I silently weep to myself in the middle of the office,” she says. “No big deal.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)