Split (1)

train · 2.59M rows

text stringlengths 12 61.1k
COCC President Jim Middleton said Thursday that he speaks regularly with OSU President Ed Ray, and recent conversations have not been unusual and have not yielded suggestions for major changes for the branch campus.
“We always meet to explore how to make the partnership work better,” he said.
The Cascades Campus is run by Oregon State University but enrolls students from both OSU and the University of Oregon.
The branch offers graduate coursework and also upper-division classes for students who attend COCC and is based in a leased building on the COCC campus.
A new strategic plan is in the works for the Cascades Campus, and officials are soliciting public input about that proposal until Dec. 10. That plan says campus enrollment will grow at between 5 and 10 percent annually.
Senator-elect Chris Telfer, a Bend Certified Public Accountant who will succeed Westlund in the Legislature in January, said she’s met with branch campus leaders to talk about their long-term plans, which hinge on enrollment gains.
So less-than-projected growth — coupled with the failure of the proposed COCC bond at the polls this month — may force some re-evaluation of college education overall in Central Oregon, she said.
“It may be time to regroup,” she said.
Who Has the Right To Bear Arms?
The fight over the Second Amendment, explained.
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would consider whether the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms. Dahlia Lithwick explained the arguments on both sides of this question in a 2001 “Explainer,” reprinted below. In the intervening time a lot has changed, including the DoJ’s stance on the question.
In a recent letter to the NRA, Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to be armed. This conflicts with the Justice Department’s official legal position, which holds that Second Amendment rights are limited to the collective rights of states to regulate their own militias.
What rights are there to own a gun under the federal Constitution?
The Second Amendment provides that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The issue turns on whether that right to bear arms represents an “individual” or “collective” right. The NRA (and Ashcroft) advocate an affirmative individual right, akin to First Amendment free speech protections, granting us the right to have guns to hunt, protect ourselves, and hold government storm troopers at bay. Gun control activists and the Justice Department (save, apparently, for Ashcroft) hold that the right as it is codified in the Second Amendment only protects the states’ authority to maintain formal, organized militias. Because the Second Amendment only concerns federal efforts to regulate firearms, state gun control efforts do not implicate the Second Amendment, and most gun laws are promulgated at the state level.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
The Supreme Court has turned down every opportunity to accept a new case and clarify the question of whether Miller established a definitive test requiring some connection between guns and state militias or whether it was announcing a one-time-only rule about Jack Miller and his shotgun. Still, the lower courts have followed the first view, and, in the wake of Miller, virtually every lower court has accepted the state militia/collective rights test as a settled point of law. While a fascinating normative debate over whether or not the right should be an individual one rages in the academy, in think tanks, and around the candy machines at NRA headquarters, the Second Amendment issue is not a close call in the courthouse. Eminent legal scholars, including Sanford Levinson and historians such as Emory’s Michael Bellesiles, have done some staggering scholarly work on the subject of the original intent of the Framers and the prevalence of guns at the time of the founding of the country. [Updated May 8, 2002: Bellesiles’ methodology has recently come under fire by constitutional scholars.] None of it has induced the Supreme Court to step into the fray.
The modern Supreme Court has invalidated federal gun laws, most recently in United States v. Lopez, but not on Second Amendment grounds. Nothing about the decision in Lopez reinforces an individual’s right to bear arms; it merely curbs congressional attempts to regulate guns, which is by no means the same thing.
Why do opinion surveys show that most American citizens believe in the individual rights position? Some legal scholars call this widespread public conviction a “hoax” and “false consciousness.” Some contend that the NRA has done a spectacular job of spinning an individual right out of law review articles, John Wayne movies, and effective propaganda. Others argue that the personal right to a gun is nevertheless a right whose time has come and that it’s just a matter of the courts catching up to public opinion.
Beleaguered state-owned enterprise Solid Energy is mothballing its contentious $25 million lignite-to-briquettes plant near Mataura.
In a statement yesterday, Solid Energy and plant joint operator GTL Energy proposed it be ''temporarily closed'', with full-time jobs down from four to one, while its future was being decided.
The Mataura briquetting plant was one of several initiatives of former chief executive Don Elder, who forged ahead with a variety of alternate and costly developments when the global coal price was soaring, but which ultimately drove Solid Energy to the brink of collapse.
A fortnight ago, the Government loaned Solid Energy $100 million, and extended a further $30 million standby facility.
About 550 jobs have been lost across the country during the past year and earlier this month Solid Energy's financial losses were reported to have ballooned to $335 million, from a $40 million loss a year ago, largely due to asset writedowns.
GTL Energy chief executive Fred Schulte said the company had options to lease or acquire the plant from Solid Energy, and they were continuing discussions on its future.
''The production results over the last few months were pleasing, with product produced, stockpiled, transported and sold,'' Mr Schulte said in a statement.
GTL was reviewing how the briquette product fitted in the domestic coal market, and the plant's future lay in its role in GTL's ''global technology deployment'', he said.
Solid Energy interim chief executive Garry Diack said the proposal, outlined to staff yesterday, was to maintain the plant in good condition until discussions with GTL Energy finished.
The perennial argument between those who like daylight-saving time and those who like standard time usually boils down to a matter of personal preference. But a recent study indicates that more might be at stake.
According to research by professors at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, changing daylight-saving time translates into about 37 more U.S. pedestrian deaths around the 6 p.m. rush hour in November compared with October. While the study still is preliminary, it appears to confirm previous findings of higher deaths after clocks are set back in the fall.
The greatest increase in risk to pedestrians occurs at the time change. Researchers attribute that to the trouble both drivers and pedestrians have adjusting to the arrival of darkness an hour earlier.
But while the adjustment to the new schedule may be responsible for the highest risk, that risk still remains at least somewhat higher until April -- when, coincidentally, the nation switches back to daylight-saving time. The risk at 6 p.m. in November, after daylight-saving time ends, is 11 times higher than the risk for the same hour in April, when daylight savings begins.
Oklahoma's big recruiting weekend has resulted in a major victory on the trail.
Four-star Raytown (MO) cornerback Dontae Manning gave the Sooners a verbal pledge on Sunday afternoon.
Manning picked Oklahoma over offers from Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia Tech and a handful of other FBS programs.
At 6-foot, 175 pounds, Manning is ranked as the No. 12 cornerback and No. 180 overall prospect in the state, per 247Sports Composite.
Oklahoma now has six commits in its 2020 recruiting class, which is ranked first in the Big 12.
Hyena Comedy Club at Harrogate Theatre on Saturday, December 8.
Looking for something to do in and around the Harrogate district from Thursday, December 6 to Wednesday, December 12?
Theatre: Harrogate Theatre’s Jack and the Beanstalk magical family pantomime. Until January 20.
Theatre: Harrogate Dramatic Society presents Dennis Potter’s Blue Remembered Hill at Harrogate Theatre Studio. Until December 8.
Exhibition: The Beano 80th Birthday Collection by Horace Panter + Sleeping Giants by Pete McKee at RedHouse Original gallery, Cheltenham Mount. Until December 15.
Exhibition: Passages of Light & Dark – An exhibition of recent paintings by Robert Macmillan at 108 Fine Art, Cold Bath Road Until December 15.
Music: Live music with The Breeze the Blues Bar.
Music: Music at The Manhattan features John Cooper. Concert starts at 7.30pm. Admission £6, free to new visitors. Free parking.
Exhibition: Georgina McMaster - Wild and Wonderful at The Barefoot Gallery, 144 High Street, Boston Spa. Until Saturday.
Festival: Boston Spa Methodist Church Christmas Tree Festival 10.30am-7pm.
Music: Sax legend Snake Davis + Johnny Thirkell + Mark Cresswell at The Club, Victoria Avenue.
Music: The Magic of Motown at the Royal Hall.
Music: Lewis Floyd Henry at the Blues Bar.
Music: Band night with The Dubwubs at The Den, Cambridge Street.
Cinema: Wetherby Film Theatre - The Girl In The Spiders’ Web - Fri-Sun: 7.30pm. Mon: 12.30pm, 7.30pm. Wed: 7.30pm. Thu: 1.30pm, 7.30pm. Dr Seuss’ The Grinch - Fri-Sat: 4.30pm. Mon-Thu: 4.30pm. The Royal Ballet: The Nutcracker - Sun: 2pm. A Christmas Carol - Tue: 7.30pm. Visit www.wetherbyfilmtheatre.co.uk.
Cinema: Ritz Cinema Thirsk - The Nutcracker - Fri-Thu: 7.30pm. Matinees Sat-Sun: 2.30pm. www.ritzcinema.co.uk.
Concert: special lunchtime concert at 1pm at Boston Spa Methodist Church. David Owen-Lewis will sing accompanied on the piano by Beryl Pankhurst. Light lunches from noon. Admission £5.
Event: Harrogate Brewing Company Tap Bar open weekend. 12-8pm Saturday, 12-4pm Sunday.
Music: Harrogate Choral Society presents Handel’s Messiah at the Royal Hall.
Theatre: Hyena Comedy Club at Harrogate Theatre. 9pm.
Music: Saturday Shakedown with DJ Martin (4-7pm) + The Jed Thomas Blues Band at the Blues Bar.
Music: Rock covers from Whisky Pistol at Charlies Place, Otley Road. 9pm.
Music: Biz Denton at The Den, Cambridge Street.
Concert: Harrogate Theatre Choir presents ‘A Box of Festive Delights’ at 7.30pm at Christ Church, Church Square, Harrogate.
Coffee Morning: Charity coffee morning at Oatlands Community Centre, Gladstone Street 10.15-11.30am.
Music: Live music with Reload at Cross Keys. 9pm.
Music: Soul (+ disco) Christmas Party at The Village Club with DJ Ian Smith. All proceeds to the British Heart Foundation.
Music: Ripon Live presents singer-songwriter Reg Meuross at RAOS Hall.
Music: No Jazz in the Spa at the village hall.
Music: Deacon Blue at Harrogate Convention Centre. Sold out.
Music: Charm’s 20th Anniversary Indie gig with 14 acts at The Regency (upstairs room). 4.30pm onwards.
Music: Live music at the Blues Bar with Victoria Shakes (3pm), Tensheds (6pm) and Diablo Smoke (9pm).
Event: Santa, Reindeer Dash & Christmas Market at King James’s School, Knaresborough 10am-1pm.
Event: The Ripon Bookshop presents author Alan Johnson talks at Holy Trinity Church + Ripon Grammar School Man Choir. 3pm. Tickets from The Ripon Bookshop or online via Eventbrite.
Concert: Cathedral Concert Society presents Onyx Brass Quintet - The Golden Age at St John’s Church, Sharow.
Club: Nidderdale Hardy Planters meeting at 7.30pm at St Andrew’s Church Hall, Starbeck, including a quiz, as part of Doug Stewart’s ‘Rather Lovely Christmas Evening’. Members free, Non-members £3.
Club: Rethink Mental Illness Harrogate Support Group meeting at 11.30am in the Music Room, St Peter’s Church, Cambridge Road, Harrogate. The meeting will run for two hours. Christmas themed refreshments available.
Saturday night, Congress threw a party, jubilant that its members had passed a version of a health care bill. Which version? That would be the one that traded the right to choose for a majority vote.
The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer. The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.
Wow. I suppose advocating for smaller, less intrusive government ends at womens' wombs.
Obama left the abortion issue unmentioned Sunday when he appeared in the White House Rose Garden to give brief remarks congratulating the House on its "courageous" passage of the bill. "Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people," he said. "And I'm absolutely confident that they will."
The bills also differ in their requirements for employers to provide coverage — the House's language is tougher — and in the subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage, which are larger in the House version. Both bills deny subsidies to illegal immigrants, but the Senate version goes further by also barring them from buying coverage on the new marketplace with their own money.
2. We have an exchange that assumes a relative definition of "affordable"
4. Undocumented workers can't access this plan, even without subsidies, though they - like other human beings - get sick and need treatment like everyone else.
Ladies and gentlemen, we got hosed.
the amendment in the House health care reform bill is narrow, barring any insurance plan that is purchased with governments subsidies from covering abortion. The vast majority of Americans would not fall into that category, she said.
Nope. Poor people, you get what you get and you will be grateful.
The House's 11th-hour change to its health bill removes abortion coverage from millions of insurance policies that consumers would get under the legislation, including from private insurers.
Anyone who receives a new government tax credit to buy health insurance couldn't enroll in an insurance plan that covers abortion. A proposed government insurance plan also wouldn't cover the procedure. That's a sharp reversal from the original bill, which included abortion coverage in the public plan and allowed those with a tax credit to enroll in a plan that covers the procedure.
Private plans inside the exchange would still be able to sell policies that cover abortion to anyone who isn't getting a tax credit. But they would have to create a special policy for that group. Insurers may be reluctant to do so because it could complicate how they pool risk and force them to label policies in a way that could draw attention from abortion opponents.
Those who receive an insurance subsidy and want coverage for abortion would need to buy a separate rider policy. "What woman would buy a plan for an unplanned pregnancy?" said Ms. Rubiner of Planned Parenthood. She said only a handful of states currently allow for such a policy.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
The current House health-care bill expressly prohibits federal funding of abortion and excludes the procedure from the minimum benefits package. It includes provisions that existing state laws and conscience laws will be respected. The House bill makes buying private health coverage affordable by offering tax credits to families with modest incomes. Moreover, the bill proposes a common-sense solution to ensuring that federal funds are not used for paying for abortion. The bill creates a mechanism for segregating private dollars from public funds to ensure that only private dollars go toward abortion coverage. This is a common practice in negotiating the role of religion in the public square. Similarly, Catholic schools receive federal funding for nonreligious services as long as those funds are separated from the school's religious work. If this solution is good enough for Catholic schools, then it is certainly good enough for health-care reform, and it reflects well on the tolerant and pluralistic society we have created. Most importantly, the bill does what the president promised health-care reform would do-it ensures that no one loses benefits they currently have.
Unfortunately, this reasonable approach is under attack from some Roman Catholic bishops who object even to the use of private dollars for women to exercise their conscience. They are determined to make abortion illegal, even if it derails health-care reform entirely-no matter the cost to women and children-and regardless of whether it would actually have any impact on the number of abortions in this country. (In fact, comprehensive health care could well reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions.) In politics, this is called using abortion as a "wedge" issue. And it's simply not right. It is not right to jeopardize health care for the millions of women and children who need it most by inserting abortion politics into the debate. As a Catholic, I admire the bishops for their dedication to social justice, but cannot understand why they would put the health of so many women and children at risk when there is not a single federal dollar being spent on abortion services. It's a view I believe many of my fellow Catholics share. I urge the bishops to recognize that the House bill contains a familiar and genuinely American solution to the challenge of weighing differing religious beliefs in the realm of public policy.
As I've said before, I consider myself "pro-conscience." Women do not make the decision to have an abortion lightly, but it is absolutely critical that they have the means to make this decision and access to the care they need, no matter what their choice. Anything less would be turning the clock back on the progress we have made on advancing women's health.
It isn't just the Catholics on this one, but I'll heartily cosign Kennedy Townsend's pragmatic, women-focused take on health care. Reducing or removing access to abortion is not an effective strategy because it doesn't work - as we've written about before, it just makes the stakes higher.
So on Saturday, [Republican Anh "Joseph"] Cao, the first Vietnamese American elected to Congress, surprised Democrats and Republicans by becoming the only one of the 177 House Republicans to support the health-care bill.
"I felt last night's decision was the right decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party," Cao told CNN on Sunday.
Obviously, passing major laws with bipartisan support is preferable. But not always. Twenty-eight House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats voted for the Bush tax cut in 2001. Coupled with the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which also had some Democratic support, that vote ran up $2.5 trillion in debt. And for what? They didn't create jobs or reduce poverty or raise incomes for the middle class. In fact, median income fell by about $2,000 per family. Sure, the Bush tax cuts were bipartisan. But they were disastrous policy.
So, a good thing is that bipartisanship will hopefully be used in service of the greater good for all, instead of just a nice term to trot out at press conferences.
*Expands Medicaid "to reach a wider range of poor households up to 150% of the federal poverty level.
36M additional Americans will now be eligible for Medicaid."
*Bars discrimination in health care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.