6 killed in Pakistan as Muslims burn Christian homes

Fighting broke out as Muslims torched 40 to 50 houses in Christian enclave. Muslims enraged over an alleged desecration of Quran at a Christian wedding.

• Muslims burned 15 Christian homes on Thursday
  
• Pakistan predominantly Muslim, but has a small Christian community

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Six people were killed in Pakistan on Saturday when Muslim demonstrators set fire to houses in a Christian enclave and fighting broke out, local police said.

Police said Muslims were enraged over an alleged desecration of pages in the Quran at a Christian wedding last Saturday, and held a rally to protest. The Quran is the Muslim sacred text.

The Muslims went to the Christian community in Gojra City, 160 kilometers (100 miles) southwest of Lahore, and burned 40 to 50 houses. Muslims and Christians exchanged gunfire.

Police said efforts to settle the concerns with dialogue so far have failed.

On Thursday, 15 Christian houses in the region were also torched.

Pakistan is predominantly Muslim but has a small Christian community.

Meanwhile, police in Islamabad reported Friday that an al Qaeda member thought to be involved in several attacks was arrested.

Bin Yamin, a senior police official in Islamabad, identified the suspect as Rao Shakir Ali.

Police believe he was involved in strikes on targets such as the Danish Embassy, a rally of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chauhdary, police, and a hotel.

The suspect is a resident of Sargodha, which is 165 kilometers (about 100 miles) northwest of Lahore and has a house in Rawalpindi that has been used to facilitate insurgent acts, police said.

Journalist Nasir Habib contributed to this report.

Chuck Comment- While no one should deface the sacred text of another religion, the reaction is way over the top. The response seems both disproportionate and typical treatment accorded to Christians accused of wrong doings while the same behavior would be protected speech in this country were a Moslem to burn the bible.

I encourage everyone to visit the Voice of the Martyrs Website-

http://www.persecution.com/

Poland marks 1944 revolt against Nazis

Sirens wailed across the Polish capital Saturday as elderly veterans and thousands of ordinary people held emotional commemorations of an ill-fated World War II revolt against the Nazi German occupiers.

At 5:00 pm (1500 GMT) -- the exact time the Warsaw uprising was launched on August 1, 1944 -- traffic drew to a halt and pedestrians stopped to observe a minute's silence.

A huge crowd also flocked to Warsaw's main military cemetery to lay flowers on the graves of those who died in the 63 days of bitter street fighting, which sparked brutal Nazi reprisals.

"We live in a completely different time. The war is long gone. But when I think about those times and what they did, I'm really proud," said Tobiasz Berger, 18.

The number of veterans has dwindled to 3,500, and the elderly fighters gather without fail every year to honour the fallen.

"I was at my daughter's place in California and came back specially for the commemorations," said Halina Cichowska-Komarnicka, 85, a resistance messenger and nurse.

The 1944 uprising was led by the Home Army -- commanded by Poland's London-based government-in-exile -- which secretly deployed around 50,000 fighters in Warsaw.

It was part of a series of Polish revolts behind German lines as a Soviet offensive drove back the Nazis.

Against overwhelming odds, the poorly-armed Home Army began preparing as early as 1940. It hoped to take the entire city in 1944 but could only seize pockets.

Around 18,000 Polish fighters died in the revolt, and some 17,000 Nazi troops. Around 200,000 civilians were massacred, or killed by crossfire and bombing, as the Nazis took Warsaw back street by street.

The Home Army capitulated on October 2 when Germany agreed to treat its members as prisoners of war rather than execute them as "bandits".

The Nazis expelled Warsaw's remaining 500,000 inhabitants and razed the city.

The uprising remains etched in veterans' minds.

"On the third day, that's when the euphoria set in. We saw the Polish flag flying," said Julian Kulski, 80, who joined the Home Army aged 13.

Kulski had lost several relatives and close friends to the Nazis.

"At that time I just wanted revenge. I was full of hate. What I saw was so inhuman. They considered us as 'non-humans', but they were the non-humans," he said.

"When I hear German today, I get goosebumps," said Kulski, who now lives in the United States.

The Nazis had imposed a reign of terror in Poland after invading in 1939. In Warsaw, they crammed hundreds of thousands of Jews into a ghetto, sent them to death camps, and destroyed a swathe of the city during a revolt by hundreds of Jewish fighters in April 1943.

The uprising also aimed to thwart the creation of a pro-Soviet government.

In 1939, the Nazis and Soviets had cut a deal to carve up Poland.

Their pact broke down in 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. As the Red Army rolled back the Nazis, it installed communist governments across Eastern Europe.

The Soviets halted their offensive on the outskirts of Warsaw, east of the Vistula river -- whether deliberately or because of battle-fatigue remains a subject of heated debate.

Britain and the United States tried to help, but Moscow barred their supply planes from landing behind Soviet lines, forcing them into perilous roundtrips from liberated Italy.

Soviet troops moved into Warsaw on January 17, 1945. Under the communist regime, Home Army veterans were executed and jailed, or fled into exile.

The uprising became iconic for banned post-war opposition movements such as Solidarity, formed in the 1980s.

"The spirit and moral strength of the uprising later motivated Solidarity. In this sense the uprising achieved its final goal," said Marcin Swiecicki, 54, a former mayor of Warsaw.

Official ceremonies have only been held since communism's demise in 1989, and have grown every year since then.

Chuck Comment- May G-d Bless them, and may those who

fell since and during the uprising and those who continue

to give their lives and freedom opposing the tyrannical,

rest in paradise and the peace that passes understanding.

Obama's revealing body language (updated and expanded))

July 31, 2009
Thomas Lifson
This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words.

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

Hat tip: Rick Richman

Update from Thomas Lifson:

I think this photo constitutes another major Obama blunder.

As some AT commentators point out, this picture becomes a metaphor for ObamaCare. The elderly are left in the back, with only the kindness of the Crowleys of the world, the stand up guys, to depend on. The government has other priorities.

One of the major subtexts of the health care debate involves the public's fear of indifferent, powerful bureaucrats ruling their lives. It is one thing to wait in line at the DMV to find out which other line you should wait in, in order to begin the process of waiting for multiple bureaucrats to go through the motions of processing your request. I have spent entire afternoons going through this process.

But when we get to health care, waiting often means enduring pain and dysfunction longer than necessary, sometimes a worsening of the condition, and sometimes death.

That's why I think this image will have genuine resonance. It captures something that older Americans in particular can relate to. The President presses ahead with a program that will tell them to take painkillers instead of getting that artificial hip.

At every stage of the entire Gates affair, Obama has provided a revealing tell. The "acted stupidly" blunder revealed that he automatically blames the police and thinks they really are stupid to begin with. It didn't trigger a single alarm bell in his mind as he figured out what to say.

Then, the non-apology apology revealed an arrogant man who cannot do what honest people do: admit it when they make a mistake.

Now at stage three, the beer photo op looked OK. It didn't turn into a disaster.

But then in a small moment that nobody in the White House had the brains to understand, Obama goes and send a body language message like this.

I think he is going to get deeper and deeper into trouble. He is no longer repeating the familiar scripts dreamed up for the campaign. He was a master performer.

But when he goes improv, as a president must do, he lets his true character show. This helps widen the level of doubt that Obama is the same guy a majority voted for. Those doubts can only grow.

How Each Household Gets Obamatized in 2009 (click to enlarge)

Graphic by Chuck Saunders based on Heritage Foundation Data

The pie chart represents the amount of money spent in the national budget as attributed to each household.

In the 70s, Obama's Science Adviser Endorsed Giving Trees Legal Standing to Sue in Court

By Christopher Neefus

(CNSNews.com) – Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights.

The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.

Giving “natural objects” -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.

“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.

“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.

According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound. “The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control pollution are already in existence,” they wrote.

“Slight changes in the legal notions and diligent application of the legal machinery are all that are necessary to induce a great reduction in pollution in the United States,” Holdren added.

Holdren, who is the new director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and President Obama’s top science advisor, made the comments in the 1977 book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”

Stone’s article -- “Should Trees Have Standing?” -- which Holdren called a “tightly reasoned essay,” was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972.

In that article, Stone plainly states: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment--indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.”

Stone admits in the article that it may seem improbable to give legal rights to nonhuman objects, but likened it to finally giving rights to black Americans.

“The fact is, that each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new ‘entity,’ the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable,” Stone wrote.

“This is partly because until the rightless (sic) thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of ‘us’--those who are holding rights at the time . . . Such is the way the slave South looked upon the black.”

The decades-old standing argument has seen a resurgence in recent months in connection with a major piece of global-warming legislation--the cap-and-trade bill--that recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives.

Environmental advocacy groups such as the Center for Earth Jurisprudence have begun citing the argument. Mary Munson, legal director for that organization, says she does not quite subscribe to Stone’s analogy on the slave South, but she does agree with him in principle.

“In our legal system, (Stone is) actually saying that rights are something that (are) little-by-little discovered, and in that sense, I’m agreeing with him in that there are rights that exist and we’re just trying to discover what they are,” she said.

Munson explained animals have already come part of the way toward a set of rights.

“(In) the animal rights movement, there have been successful cases where people have upheld animals’ right not to be tortured. And I think a lot of people would agree that animals do have that kind of a right. So it’s just a matter of finding out what are those inherent rights that nature may have.”

“Courts are there to uphold laws,” she told CNSNews.com, “and you don’t bring a lawsuit unless a law has been violated." In cases where there's "been injury because somebody’s overstepped" an object's legal boundaries, a lawyer could sue on behalf of the injured nonhuman object.

“(I)t will have to be a human lawyer that would bring the lawsuit, but just on behalf of the injured party and the injured party would be an animal or something.”

The White House did not comment on questions from CNSNews.com about Holdren’s stance on legal standing for natural objects--and whether it has changed since the 1970s.

Before joining the Obama administration, Holdren was a professor at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass. He holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University and an M.S. from MIT, where he also received his undergraduate degree.

Chuck comment- It is amazing to me that this administration has within its appointees persons who want to give legal standing to trees and simultaneously deny it to unborn children. This is just unfathomable. G-d help us all.

Man charged with attacking roommate with coconut

3:39 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – Authorities said a West Palm Beach man trying to get money from his roommate hit him with a coconut, a porcelain bowl and a wooden carving. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office reported that the 44-year-old man was charged with robbery with a weapon and false imprisonment after Saturday's attack. The roommate eventually got away and called for help.

Deputies reported finding the man riding a bicycle near the home. They say he smelled like alcohol and appeared to be drunk.

He was being held on $4,000 bail.

Chuck Comment- in response to the attack, liberal members of congress are considering new limitations on coconuts, the banning of sales of coconuts at grocery stores without a permit, and the registration of all coconuts and coconut owners.

Church forced before commission for not accepting homosexual servers.

The 12 Cobourg Catholic parishioners and diocese bishop named in an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaint over an accusation of discrimination due to sexual orientation filed a response to the complaint by today's deadline.

Essentially, the response filed with the Commission was that the issue is "not a human rights problem but a church matter," Reg Ward of Cobourg, one of the 12 parishioners at St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church, told Northumberland Today in an interview yesterday.

Grafton resident Jim Corcoran filed the Human Rights Tribunal complaint recently following his removal last April as an altar server at St. Michael's because, he says, his removal was based on his sexual orientation. He also said it was part of an ongoing vendetta against Father Allan Hood of the Division Street church. It was Hood who had asked Corcoran and his life partner to take the necessary training to become altar servers.

In his complaint Corcoran, who owns Ste. Anne's Spa, states that "this group (of 12) had threatened to go public with their complaints if the (Peterborough Diocese) Bishop (Nicola De Angelis) did not remove the two gay servers from the altar."

This parishioners' complaint letter was among the most recent in a series about Hood, according to Corcoran's official complaint with the Tribunal.

The complaint also states: "Apparently this group had written to the Bishop on this topic on at least one previous occasion. In their letters, the group has tried to establish that I am married to my same sex partner, that I am an active homosexual leading an openly homosexual lifestyle and they implied that I may be in a relationship with (a church official)."

Corcoran said the bishop refused to meet him after directing that Hood ask Corcoran and his partner, who did not file a Human Rights Tribunal complaint, to no longer be altar servers.

"I am not married to my same sex partner but I do not hide my sexual preference or my relationship," Corcoran also wrote in the document.

In an interview, Corcoran described himself as being "chaste for many years" and denied the accusations he says have been made against him by fellow parishioners.

The others, in addition to Ward, named in the complaint by Corcoran are: Bishop De Angelis, Jean Amelia, Joan Mowat, Jack Vollering, Gerald Lawless, Melvin McPhee, Hilda McPhee, Arthur Champagne, James Keeler, Joe O'Grady, Agnes Marchand, Huguette Keeler and the Catholic Archdiocese of Peterborough.

Corcoran is seeking a $20,000 penalty against each of the 12 individuals (which he says will be donated to charity) plus legal costs up to $25,000 by the Diocese of Peterborough. He also wants the bishop to preach a sermon at the Cobourg church on the "consequences of practicing discrimination and the slanderous spreading of rumours, hate and innuendo". Corcoran says he'd also like to be restored to the position of altar server. In addition, Corcoran is asking for an article published by the bishop on the "rights of persons with same sex attractions to practice their faith within the Catholic Church without fear of threats, recrimination or discrimination. And that the Archdiocese of Peterborough develop and publish policies supporting human rights of all people in the church. In the complaint, Corcoran agrees to mediation before a full hearing, should the Tribunal decide it has jurisdiction. Ward maintains the Tribunal does not. He referred this newspaper to Toronto lawyer Ryan Breedon who could speak further on the response, but Breedon did not reply to the telephone inquiry.

Father Joseph DeVereau spoke on behalf of the bishop when this newspaper sought comment from him.

"Because a legal process has been started we can not make any comments to the media," he said.

Utah Boy avoids church by taking family car for a spin.

July 29, 2:05 AM

Plain City, Utah

A seven year old, Plain City, Utah boy decided to take his Sunday drive a little earlier than usual. Police had a 4o mile per hour car chase which ended with a foot race when the young car jacker dodged into an unknown home to evade capture. Dispatchers were tipped off when the child was recklessly driving. Upon questioning by his father, the boy related that he did not want to go to church that morning. Despite running a stop sign, Weber County Sheriff's Capt. Klint Anderson said no citations or arrests were made in the matter, but the father was cautioned to keep the keys out of the son's reach.

Chuck Comment- Been there, done that. When I was that age, I just pressed all the buttons until I killed the battery in the car. Perhaps the old testament reading that morning should have been- (Ecclesiastes 1:10 NIV) What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Then again, my father always subscribed to "He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) My bet is Junior is not going to sit for a week. : )

Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’

CNSNews.com

Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company.

At the time “Human Ecology” was published, Holdren was a senior research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” a book The Washington Post said “launched the popular movement for zero population growth.”

“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” argued that the human race faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.

“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”

The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”

At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.




“To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

In the same paragraph, the authors continue on to note that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.” But they do not revisit the issue of when exactly the “fetus” would properly be considered a “human being.”

“From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being [italics in original],” wrote the authors. “Historically, the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother’s body.”

The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares “unwanted children” from “undesirable consequences.”

“From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens."

“There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation,” wrote the authors.

The Ehrlichs and Holdren then chide opponents of abortion for condemning future generations to an “overcrowded planet.”

“Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is being made for an unborn person who ‘has no say,’” write the authors. “But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded planet.”

Holdren has impeccable academic credentials. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate at Stanford. He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

In addition to his duties at Harvard, Holdren was director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass.

His curriculum vitae posted at the Woods Hole Web site lists “Human Ecology” as one of the books he has co-authored or co-edited.

“Dr. Holdren,” says the Web posting, “is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).”

The next to last subsection of the chapter on “Population Limitation” in “Human Ecology” is entitled, “Involuntary Fertility Control,” which the authors stress is an “unpalatable idea.”

“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying” the authors state at the end of the subsection. “As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

In February, when Holdren appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for a confirmation hearing, he was not asked about his comment in “Human Ecology” that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being.”

Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.) did ask him, however, about the population-control ideas he expressed in 1973.

“In 1973, you encouraged a, quote, ‘decline in fertility to well below replacement,’ close quote, in the United States, because, quote, ‘280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many,’ close quote,” said Vitter. “What would your number for the right population in the U.S. be today?”

“I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States,” Holdren responded. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems in the United States appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed.

“I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities,” Holdren continued. “It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling ‘sustainable prosperity.’”

In a subsequent question, Vitter asked, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”

“No, senator, I do not,” said Holdren.

The White House Press Office did not respond to emailed and telephoned inquiries from CNSNews.com about Holdren’s statement in “Human Ecology” that a baby will “ultimately develop into a human being.”

Man sleeping in dumpster gets picked up with trash

Jul 27, 4:20 PM (ET)

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - Authorities said a man, who had been sleeping in a Dumpster, sustained minor injuries after he was picked up by a garbage truck along with the trash. Authorities said that when firefighters and paramedics arrived, they heard Kevin Hallaran, 52, banging on the metal sides of the sanitation truck asking for help.

Hallaran had been sleeping inside a Dumpster behind a restaurant Sunday night and had been unknowingly dumped along with the garbage from restaurants and other businesses into the truck early Monday.

A sanitation department employee had not yet activated the truck's compactor after he mistakenly dumped Hallaran inside.

Authorities said the compactor would most likely have killed Hallaran.

Chuck Comment- In a related story, the Whitehouse has announced new proposals introducing annual fees and taxes for dumpster sleeping permits and appointment of a commission to evaluate industry standards to make dumpsters more comfortable and requirements for the inside of garbage truck containers to have an automatic off switch in the event that persons are dumped.

Maine EMT struck by monster truck, saved by mud

12:20 PM Yahoo news

LEBANON, Maine – A Maine rescue department volunteer struck by a monster truck at a mud race avoided serious injuries thanks to a cocoon of mud.

Jason Cole, assistant rescue chief in the southern Maine town of Lebanon, says the driver lost control of her truck Sunday at the "Go Deep Mud" contest when the throttle became stuck.

Cole declined to identify the emergency medical technician, but says the truck struck the volunteer and knocked him flat on his back. Cole says the EMT sank so far into the mud that only his face was showing, and the truck's 35-inch tires passed on either side of him.

When the throttle came unstuck and the truck came to a stop, the EMT was able to crawl out on his own and walk to an ambulance. He was treated and released from a hospital.

Chuck Comment- In an unrelated story, the administration has announced new OSHAA requirements for all EMTs to be coated henceforth in mud. Further, due to slashes in the defense budget, the DOD has announced that mud is going to become the newest form of body armour. Finally, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have announced a 4.6 billion dollar mud farm initiative in the Death Valley National Park. "Placing the mud farm in the Mississippi Delta Region makes no sense." Pelosi was quoted as saying. She continued, "By piping vast amounts of great lakes water to Death Valley we will create new, high quality mud. All government projects will be required to use the mud in their construction as well as all health care facilities will be mandated to give patients mud packs before discharge. I just know THIS will turn the economy around!!!"

CBO strikes back

posted at 12:14 pm on July 27, 2009
Share on Facebook | regular view

by Ed Morrissey http://hotair.com/

The CBO released a new analysis of the House version of ObamaCare yesterday, after getting blasted by White House budget director Peter Orszag for “exaggerating” the costs associated with the proposal. Douglas Elmendorf tells Rep. Dave Camp (R), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, that the changes proposed by the White House will have little impact on their cost analysis, and that in fact the news gets worse in the second decade after the first runs up a $239 billion deficit:

The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade. The reductions in direct spending would also be larger in the second decade than in the first, and they would represent an increasing share of spending on Medicare over that period; however, they would be much smaller at the end of the 10-year budget window than the cost of the coverage provisions, so they would not be likely to keep pace in dollar terms with the rising cost of the coverage expansion. Revenue from the surcharge on high-income individuals would be growing at about 5 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; that component would continue to grow at a slower rate than the cost of the coverage expansion in the following decade. In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year-budget window.

In other words, that $239 billion in Decade 1 was actually the good news. Why will it get worse?

As long as overall spending for health care continued to expand as a share of the economy, people’s share of insurance costs would continue to rise faster than their income, or the government’s subsidy costs would continue to rise faster than the tax base, or both. The proposal limits the share of income that eligible people would have to pay when they purchased coverage in the insurance exchanges, and that share of income would not change over time. In addition, insurance plans offered through the exchanges would be required to pay a specified share of costs for covered services (on average), and that share also would not change over time. Combining those provisions, increases in health care spending in excess of the rate of growth in income would be borne entirely by the federal government in the form of higher subsidy payments—because those payments would have to cover the entire difference between the total premium for insurance coverage and the capped amount that enrollees would pay.

It’s not exactly rocket-science mathematics on display here. If costs go up but premiums and health-insurance payments are capped, guess who pays for the rising costs? The federal government. The Obama administration will claim that they’ve capped costs and people will see their direct payments to health insurers and providers remain fixed, but the government will have to enact massive tax hikes to pay the back-end costs — which will come out of everyone’s pockets. Either that, or the government will have to sharply ration care — which the Obama administration denies will happen.

Obviously, the White House attempt at public intimidation didn’t cause Elmendorf to flinch. Instead, his report will give ObamaCare opponents in the House, Democrats included, ammunition to demand a return to the drawing board.