TampaYankee

Well, of course we have to sift the facts and consider the perspective of whomever we read but that was not the question. The question was about the credibility of this specific organization and I presented a case for it lacking to some extent. If this were a reliably factually credible organization then we needn't exercise all that much care with them. But we have to so that speaks to the issue raised. I didn't spend a lot of time weighing the credibility of Walter Cronkite, Edward R Murrow and David Brinkley. They established their credibility through pretty good track records of straight no-punches-pulled reporting. They didn't waste effort to soften the impact of reporting the facts supporting the charge that one red-headed lady was a public slut by pointing out that a blue-haired lady wasn't a virgin. Of course that was in the age when news organizations were supported as public trusts and not as another arm of profit-making media-organizations chasing ratings and revenue by not offending potential program guests as well as some reading/viewing segments of their circulation base. They sacrifice accuracy and focus in search of appearing fair and balanced. Where have we seen that before?

Is this a statement of support for evicting McDonalds and D-World?

New SARS-like virus shows person-to-person transmission By Kate Kelland | Reuters – Wed, Feb 13, 2013 LONDON (Reuters) - A third patient in Britain has contracted a new SARS-like virus, becoming the second confirmed British case in a week and showing the deadly infection is being spread from person to person, health officials said on Wednesday. The latest case, in a man from the same family as another patient, brings the worldwide number of confirmed infections with the new virus - known as novel coronavirus, or NCoV - to 11. Of those, five have died. Most of the infected lived or had recently been in the Middle East. Three have been diagnosed in Britain. NCoV was identified when the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued an international alert in September 2012 saying a virus previously unknown in humans had infected a Qatari man who had recently been in Saudi Arabia. The virus belongs to the same family as SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - a coronavirus that emerged in China in 2002 and killed about a tenth of the 8,000 people it infected worldwide. Symptoms common to both viruses include severe respiratory illness, fever, coughing and breathing difficulties. Britain's Health Protection Agency (HPA) said the latest patient, who is a UK resident and does not have any recent travel history, is in intensive care at a hospital in central England. "Confirmed novel coronavirus infection in a person without travel history to the Middle East suggests that person-to-person transmission has occurred, and that it occurred in the UK," said John Watson, the HPA's head of respiratory diseases. He said the new case was a family member in close contact with another British case confirmed on Monday and who may have been at greater risk because of underlying health conditions. The WHO said although this latest case shows evidence of person-to-person transmission, it still believes "the risk of sustained person-to-person transmission appears to be very low". RISK VERY LOW, BUT VIRUSES CAN MUTATE Coronaviruses are typically spread like other respiratory infections such as flu, travelling in airborne droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Yet since NCoV was identified in September, evidence of person-to-person transmission has been limited. Watson said the fact it probably had taken place in the latest two cases in Britain gave no reason for increased alarm. "If novel coronavirus were more infectious, we would have expected to have seen a larger number of cases than we have seen since the first case was reported three months ago. Tom Wilkinson, a senior lecturer in respiratory medicine at Britain's University of Southampton, said that if NCoV turned out to be like the previous SARS outbreak, it may prove quite slow to spread from one human to another. "But it's early days to make any definite statements because viruses can change and mutate very rapidly, so what is right today may be wrong tomorrow," he told Reuters. Based on the current situation, the WHO said all member states should continue surveillance for severe acute respiratory infections and investigate any unusual patterns. "Testing for the new coronavirus should be considered in patients with unexplained pneumonias, or in patients with unexplained severe, progressive or complicated respiratory illness not responding to treatment," it said in a statement. The WHO said on Monday that the confirmation of a new British case did not alter its risk assessment but "does indicate that the virus is persistent". The British patient confirmed on Monday had recently travelled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and is in intensive care in a separate British hospital, the HPA said. Among the 11 laboratory confirmed cases to date, five are in Saudi Arabia, with three deaths; two are in Jordan, where both patients died; three are in Britain, where all three are receiving treatment; and one was in Germany in a patient from Qatar who had since been discharged from medical care. The WHO said at this stage there is no need for travel or trade restrictions, or for special screening at border points. (Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Michael Roddy) See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/case-sars-virus-shows-person-person-transmission-115342518.html

About 50/50... maybe. I've seen more than a few of their analyses that stink. That doesn't mean they get them all wrong or even most... maybe. But sometimes they are into shading and equivocating if they think they can in favor of 'fairness and balance' when that is just rank bull shit. And that happens to both sides of the political spectrum. Anytime someone starts giving me equivocating bullshit arguments I know they are more concerned about acceptance and ratings than giving the unvarnished facts. Nobody is supposed to like the umpire. Umpires do not seek ratings and acceptance. That would corrupt the game.

Yup. The airline industry has gone into the toilet in the last five or so years. I'm glad I have no reasons to fly these days cause I'd sure spend a lot of my time pissed off.

David Beckham is like a fine wine... he gets better with age. Not to say that I don't appreciate a fine Beaujolais also.

I suspect the majority of Canadian boys you have encountered are French Canadian which may explain your observation? As for Bieber, I think he is fine and talented. He is very high profile and that is resented by segments of the population. I'm that way with Lindsay Lohan although I think she warrants that resentment by her attitudes and actions and the fact that she has done so little, yet gets such coverage. So there are Bieber haters because he is young, androgynous, has teenage girls swooning like the Beatles of yesteryear, is making money hand over fist and is the overblown subject of the papparazi. He's done nothing wrong and actually makes a contribution to himself, his family, his record company, fans and more. He doesn't seem comtemptuous of his fans, the establishment and the rules of the road as say LL might. So people should cut him a little slack. He could be a lot worse public icon. The fact that he is so young is not his fault, we all were at one time.

This aircraft is going to be the cat's meow. Any large complex new technology system is going to have birthing issues. It is the nature of complexity and the finite limitations of human capacity. We can do great complex things but not overnight and not the first time out of the chute. We learn and refine as we go. So it is here, but ultimately this will be a magnificent advance in air transportation, nay sayers not withstanding.

It is not the money, it is the convenience. If she doesn't swing entirely the other way then she swings both ways. What better to put rumors to rest than marriage. But it must be a marriage that will work given the personal preferences. Each hand washes the other.

It is not a politician or political appointee that makes that decision. It is the Commander-In-Chief or his designees in the Millitary or Intelligence commands who makes that decision. So says the Constitution. Politicians speak for their party, the CIC speaks and acts for the nation. The Nation elected him to do so. You or I may not agree with everything he does (I had my differences with some Bush decisions) but that doesn't diminish his authority to do so. I don't believe that such authority is absolute in all circumstances or even most circumstances but rather authorized by circumstance. For example, if we have a terrorist in custody and he no longer poses an active threat to our government, and we are signatories to international agreements and have civilian and military law that sets precedent for actions and remedies in our country and military then I do not believe that CIC is authorized on his own authority to revoke or ignore those laws/agreements. The difference between a criminal and a terrorist is that the latter strikes against the very being of our nation with the intent of killing it. The criminal has much more modest goals to commit crime to enrich himself or harm individuals or entities for their own reasons. They are not a threat to the country. The President is not required or authorizied by by the Constitution to undertake local law enforcement activities. Congress has extended by statute Federal Law enforcement authority in narrowly-drawn well-defined situations that usually involve interstate criminal activities and certain heinous crimes like kidnapping.

I'm heartened that they are ones.

This seals the deal about not seeking a Federal Office any time in the near future. I cannot imagine why he would do this other than the money. He is not nearly conservative enough to appease the Fox audience, or won't allow himself to be portrayed so if he hopes to ever run for statewide Mass office. And he cannot permit himself to de dragged to the right because of future statewide run considerations. He's about to find out what it's like being a black kid on a Southie block. If Ailes is trying to undertake a shift to the moderate side this would be a start but cumonnnnn... we're talking Roger Ailes and Fox News here!! Even if Ailes had such designs, this along with dumping Morris and Sara Palin would just be the tip of the iceberg. Half the idiots on that channel would have to be dumped starting with the morning show.

Sometimes grandparents have a lot more guts than their children who are parents. I honestly believe some of that is due to living longer and seeing more of life. Having been down the road it becomes clearer what is important and what is bullshit.

I'm always a stickler about Constitutional Rights and I was against much/most of the Patriot Act pushed by Bush and renewed by Obama. I still am. However, there are circumstances where rights may not be absolute. Taking up arms against the country might be one exception under the right circumstances. I'm going out on a limb here commenting without having read either of the above links YET. I will get to it when, 1. I have the time, and 2. I have the presence of mind to recall them, intersect. I believe our Drone Policy is in serious need of clarification and discussion but not about whether Constitutional Rights of citizens are absolute or the need to kill a U.S. citizen is ever justifiable. They are not and it is in potential circumstances, IMO. What is in dire need of discussion are the red lines in making such decisions and taking such actions. Here are my thoughts: If one take up arms, figuratively or literally, against the U.S. then he is an enemy of the the United States and a traitor. If he is in the jurisdiction of U.S. Constitutional Rights, eg. the Homeland or Territory or foreign base, then those rights and procedures extend to him. If he is in the jurisdiction of a country at war against the U.S. and he provides aid and comfort to those fighting that war then he is a traitor and military combatant and forfeits those rights he fights to overturn. He should be offered the opportunity to surrender himself for prosecution under those rights. If he declines to do so then he forfeits those rights as a traitorous U.S. Citizen and is treated as a military combatant without Constitutional Rights, the same as any other combatant of the foreign country. If he is in a sovereign country that is not in a declared war with the U.S. then he is classified as a combatant of a nongovernmental military organization at conflict with the U.S. Whatever the organization is called is unimportant, they are defined by their actions against the U.S., not by their name. The U.S. should seek a cooperative agreement with the Sovereign government to apprehend or permit the U.S. to apprehend the combatant. Failure to achieve either of those outcomes leaves Drones as one legitimate option to deactivate the combatant. Another series of red lines relating to target value and cost of execution must then be addressed. That relates to intelligence information available on the target and target location. I have to assume that we have placed that analysis and decision making in competent hands, else we have no confidence in any of our intelligence and military structures. Some raise the issue of having the positions of judge, jury and executioner reside in one office/person. It is a fair concern. Unfortunately, these circumstances do not lend themselves to a separation of functions as our civil and military law procedures do. Personally, I would have no problem if an entity like the FISA Court was set up to validate the case for a citizen to be added to a Citizen Combatant Military Action List. It would not afford the combatant with an advocate, a right he already declined by refusing to surrender. However, it would provide an external set of eyes and minds to review the facts and arguments against an individual before placing him on the Citizen Combatant Military Action List. I have stepped over the whole sticky business of analysis and decision making associated with ordering a time and place for definite action. I'm unqualified to do more than admit existence of these thorny issues. However, I did want to address the issue that seems to bother many liberals about 'targeting a citizen'. Chris Matthews provided an example that crystalized in one image all of my feeling about the legitimacy of such action under the right circumstances when he said "imagine seeing an American citizen in a Nazi uniform in WWII Germany or Vichy France". Clearly these people knowingly forfeit their Constitution Rights by their own actions. Anyone who does not see that chooses not to see the nose on their own face.

Agreed, reflection of the 'astute' electorate. As for letting others do the thinking... a find tradition practiced earlier by Dubya. Big Oil runs that state, whoever sits in the Governor's Mansion.

This man knows how to make lemonade and enjoy it.

Interesting read Oz, thanks for sharing.

Let me add my best wishes for a Happy Birthday with many more to come.

Not surprising given the generation and background.

I do not believe so. Once they enter there is no enforced tracking and no exit through US Customs. They must show at the Customs for the country of destination though, either here or at the destination depending on which end that Customs Office is located. I guess countries could cooperate in sharing that info but that is as good as the cooperation agreement and attitude. Seems most countries, the U.S. included, are more interested in who is coming than in seeing that they leave on time. Once they are here the can blend in. The only penalty is that when caught they may be banned from returning for a period of years or eternity if there are serious enough infractions incurred during their stay.

I'm not sure why anyone who isn't cold blooded (as in reptiles) would want to live in Phoenix. Between the heat and dust storms and scorpions and ... well, the list goes on and on and on and ...

My grandfather used to say about someone doing what they ought not, " he wouldn't go to hell for a nickel but he'd fool around the edge till he fell in". I think that sums these people up.

He certainly was a mixed bag. He was a very complex man leaving me with very conflicted feelings about him. He was certainly deeply flawed with prejudice and paranoia, but also a very accomplished chess player in foreign affairs and a domestic progressive before his time. If only the Dems had worked with him on his health care proposal of 40 years ago. He is the father of the Environmental Protection Agency which is one of his progressive accomplishments.

IMO changing review ratings to a numerical scale is unnecessary. Software can do that to generate averages which can then be reported numerically or mapped back into the original rating scale. Some computers are smart enough to do that.

A Trick for Cheaper Flights Hiding in Plain Sight ‹By Scott McCartney | The Wall Street Journal ​ Reuters/REUTERS - A Turkish Airlines plane takes off at Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul November 30, 2012. Want a quick 30% discount on your family's trip to Europe or Hawaii? In the crazy airfare world, sometimes buying two tickets is cheaper than one. Pairing two discounted tickets together to create your own connecting itinerary can often be less expensive than flying on one ticket, if you take advantage of airlines' city-specific specials, or create your own route using discount airlines. The strategy comes with serious trade-offs. You may have to recheck bags or stay overnight in a connecting city. And if you're late for your connecting flight, your trip could be canceled as a no-show. But mileage junkies who take advantage of ticketing quirks have been using this strategy for years. For travelers dealing with some of the highest fares in years to Europe, Asia, Hawaii and other long-haul destinations, doing it right can save hundreds of dollars a ticket. "You have to put your cheapskate hat on," said Tom Parsons, chief executive of BestFares.com, a discount travel site. "You just have to check the gateway cities and do the math." Carriers routinely offer special deals in particular cities. But they don't let reservation systems and online ticket sellers to combine those ultracheap fares with connecting flights in a single transaction. Allowing this could cause a widespread fare sale that would trigger price matching and even more fare cutting by competitors. But travelers can build their own itineraries by buying two separate tickets—with the same airline or different ones—and creating their own connection. When Air Berlin, which begins flying from Chicago in March, posts cheap prices to German cities, other carriers match fares on flights from Chicago. Since the low Chicago fares can't be combined with other cities on the same ticket, people outside the Windy City can find separately a cheap ticket to Chicago and build their own connection to save big bucks. For example: A Dallas-Düsseldorf round trip in late May costs $1,337 when priced as one ticket on United Airlines. Use a $677 round-trip ticket between Chicago and Düsseldorf with a $243 Dallas-Chicago round-trip—both on United—and you can save $417 per ticket, or 31%. Turkish Airlines, trying to expand more in the U.S., has driven prices as low as $409 round-trip between Washington, D.C., and Istanbul, including all taxes, fees and fuel surcharges. Other airlines have matched on some flights. Washington also is home to some cheap flights to Athens. So if you can find a cheap ticket to Washington, you've got a great deal to Europe. Likewise, a trip to Rome from Atlanta can be $750 cheaper if you buy a ticket to New York and then a New York-Rome round-trip. In some cases, the two-ticket trip puts you on the same airplanes that you would have booked with a one-ticket itinerary. United, for example, has prices as low as $614 from Houston to Istanbul in April and May. A traveler in Austin, Texas, could buy that, along with a separate $125 round-trip on United between Austin and Houston, and avoid United's $1,137 Austin-Istanbul round-trip—on the same airplanes. Savings: about 35% off the one-ticket price. You can also build an itinerary using discount airlines that don't link their fares with other airlines. Hawaiian Airlines was running a recent sale from West Coast cities to various Hawaiian destinations. Pair those tickets with flights on Southwest Airlines, for example, and beat the one-ticket price of major airlines. Those kind of deals don't show up in airline or travel agent computers or online searches because Southwest doesn't "interline," or share routings with other carriers. In general, most big international gateways offer the opportunity for double-ticket savings on select routes. It helps that domestic discount airlines have increased their service to international hubs, including New York's Kennedy International Airport, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia and Washington. Rick Seaney, co-founder of FareCompare.com, says he uses the two-ticket trick frequently for trips to Asia. From his home in Dallas, Mr. Seaney finds the cheapest flight to his destination from a West Coast city, then a cheap ticket from Dallas to that West Coast gateway. He spends the night on the West Coast and still saves hundreds of dollars. "The savings can be half the price," he said. Mr. Seaney calls the trick "virtual interlining"—building connections airlines don't want constructed. The tactic can work best in summer when discount airfares are harder to find. For a June 11 to 18, the lowest round-trip airfare from Atlanta to Berlin was priced on Friday at $1,541. The New York to Berlin fare was $680. With discount competition between New York and Atlanta, the lowest round-trip are to JFK was $258. That is a savings of 39%. Airlines say buying two tickets doesn't break their rules. Carriers discourage the practice, but say it isn't a serious threat to their pricing strategies because most fliers won't go to the trouble. "If you see it and you can book it, you can take it," said US Airways spokesman John McDonald. The hassles can be significant. When flying on two tickets you'll likely have to claim and recheck your bags—potentially costing two baggage fees, as well as the time you'll have to plan between flights and the hassle of leaving and re-entering secure areas. "If you're a light packer, this is the best way to travel," Mr. Seaney said. Make sure to leave plenty of time for connections. If one airline runs late, you could end up being a no-show for your second ticket, and that could cost you dearly to get rebooked. Consider arriving in your gateway city a day ahead of time and staying overnight. The hotel cost erodes some of your savings, but it does give you a chance to spend some time in another city. Watch out for trips that use different airports in the same city—that can add cost and require extra time for a bus, train or cab between airports. Using discount airlines in Europe can also add to savings after you land. Europe has extensive discount airline service on Ryanair, easyJet and other carriers. But beware: The discount carriers often use out-of-the-way air fields and you can find yourself with long transfers between airports. And watch out for hefty baggage fees on European discounters. Checking a single 40-pound bag for a trans-Atlantic flight would be within the free allowance of most airlines, but if you also have a 40-pound carry-on bag, you'll pay $288 for excess weight on easyJet, plus a $40 baggage fee when checking in at the airport. See original article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trick-cheaper-flights-hiding-plain-022700026.html