The USS Zumwalt, the first in a new class of "stealth" destroyers.
U.S. Navy/General Dynamics
Capt. James Kirk always got the latest, most advanced ship in Starfleet, so it seems only fitting that the Navy's new stealth destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, is slated to be commanded by none other than Capt. James A. Kirk, USN.
We can only speculate about the ribbing Bethesda, Md., native might have received from fellow officers as he rose through the ranks, but it doesn't seem to have hurt his career any. The 23-year veteran of the surface fleet, who is listed as "prospective commanding officer" of the Zumwalt, never commanded the recently retired USS Enterprise (CVN-65), but he did serve as operations officer aboard another aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). Kirk was also commanding officer of the frigate USS De Wert (FFG-45) and served in various capacities aboard several other ships.
"The largest destroyer ever built for the Navy, the Zumwalt looks like no other U.S. warship, with an angular profile and clean carbon fiber superstructure that hides antennas and radar masts.
" 'The Zumwalt is really in a league of its own,' said defense consultant Eric Wertheim, author of the 'The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World.'
"Originally envisioned as a 'stealth destroyer,' the Zumwalt has a low-slung appearance and angles that deflect radar. Its wave-piercing hull aims for a smoother ride.
"The 610-foot ship is a behemoth that's longer and bigger than the current class of destroyers. It was originally designed for shore bombardment and features a 155mm 'Advanced Gun System' that fires rocket-propelled warheads that have a range of nearly 100 miles.
"Thanks to computers and automation, it will have only about half the complement of sailors as the current generation of destroyers."
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's ruling that found the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy was discriminatory and took the unusual step of removing her from the case, saying interviews she gave during the trial called her impartiality into question.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the rulings by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.
The judge ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in how it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people. The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and the training program associated with it.
During arguments, lawyers in the case said the police department hasn't had to do anything except meet with a monitor since the judge's decision. But the city said police officers are afraid to stop and frisk people now and the number of stop-and-frisks has dropped dramatically.
The three-judge appeals panel, which heard arguments on the requested stay on Tuesday, noted that the case might be affected in a major way by next week's mayoral election.
Democratic candidate Bill de Blasio, who's leading in polls, has sharply criticized and promised to reform the NYPD's stop-and-frisk technique, saying it unfairly targets minorities. He said he was "extremely disappointed" in Thursday's decision.
The appeals court said the judge needed to be removed because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges in part by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality. It noted she had given a series of media interviews and public statements responding to criticism of the court. In a footnote, it cited interviews with the New York Law Journal, The Associated Press and The New Yorker magazine.
The judge said Thursday that quotes from her written opinions gave the appearance she had commented on the case in interviews. But she said a careful reading of each interview will reveal no such comments were made.
The 2nd Circuit said cases challenging stop-and-frisk policies will be assigned to a different judge chosen randomly. It said the new presiding judge shall stay all proceedings pending further rulings by it.
After a 10-week civil trial that ended in the spring, Scheindlin ruled that police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with the stop-and-frisk program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented plaintiffs in the case, said it was dismayed that the appeals court delayed "the long-overdue process to remedy the NYPD's unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices" and was shocked that it "cast aspersions" on the judge's professional conduct and reassigned the case.
The city said it was pleased with the federal appeals court ruling. City lawyer Michael Cardozo said it allows for a fresh and independent look at the issue.
Stop-and-frisk, which has been criticized by civil rights advocates, has been around for decades, but recorded stops increased dramatically under Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four men, all minorities, and became a class action case.
About 5 million stops have been made in New York in the past decade, with frisks occurring about half the time. To make a stop, police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred, a standard lower than the probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 10 percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons are found about 2 percent of the time.
Supporters of changes to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program say the changes will end unfair practices, will mold a more trusted police force and can affect how other police departments use the policy. Opponents say the changes will lower police morale but not crime.
The judge noted she wasn't putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just two weeks after President Barack Obama saw his Democratic Party put up an unyielding front against Republicans, his coalition is showing signs of stress.
From health care to spying to pending budget deals, many congressional Democrats are challenging the administration and pushing for measures that the White House has not embraced.
Some Democrats are seeking to extend the enrollment period for new health care exchanges. Others want to place restraints on National Security Administration surveillance capabilities. Still others are standing tough against any budget deal that uses long-term reductions in major benefit programs to offset immediate cuts in defense.
Though focused on disparate issues, the Democrats' anxieties are connected by timing and stand out all the more when contrasted with the remarkable unity the party displayed during the recent showdown over the partial government shutdown and the confrontation over raising the nation's borrowing limit.
"That moment was always going to be fleeting," said Matt Bennett, who worked in the Clinton White House and who regularly consults with Obama aides. "The White House, every White House, understands that these folks, driven either by principle or the demands of the politics of their state, have to put daylight between themselves and the president on occasion."
Obama and the Democrats emerged from the debt and shutdown clash with what they wanted: a reopened government, a higher debt ceiling and a Republican Party reeling in the depths of public opinion polls.
But within days, attention turned to the problem-riddled launch of the 3-year-old health care law's enrollment stage and revelations that the U.S. had been secretly monitoring the communications of as many as 35 allied leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And with new budget talks underway, Democratic Party liberals reiterated demands that Obama not agree to changes that reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits even in the improbable event Republicans agree to increase budget revenues.
The fraying on the Democratic Party edges is hardly unraveling Obama's support and it pales when compared to the upheaval within the Republican Party as it distances itself from the tactics of tea party conservatives. But the pushback from Democrats comes as Obama is trying to draw renewed attention to his agenda, including passage of an immigration overhaul, his jobs initiatives and the benefits of his health care law.
The computer troubles that befell the start of health insurance sign-ups have caused the greatest anxiety. Republicans pounced on the difficulties as evidence of deeper flaws in the law. But Democrats, even as they defended the policy, also demanded answers in the face of questions from their constituents.
"The fact is that the administration really failed these Americans," Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., told Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner at a hearing this week. "So going forward, there can be just no more excuses."
In the Senate, 10 Democrats signed on to a letter seeking an unspecified extension of the enrollment period, which ends March 31. "As you continue to fix problems with the website and the enrollment process, it is critical that the administration be open to modifications that provide greater flexibility for the American people seeking to access health insurance," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., wrote.
Another Democratic senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has called for a one-year delay in the requirement that virtually all Americans have health insurance or pay a fine.
On Thursday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, Tavenner and the White House's designated troubleshooter for the health care web site, Jeffrey Zients, were meeting privately with Senate Democrats to offer reassurances.
Democrats who have talked to White House officials in recent days describe them as rattled by the health care blunders. But they say they are confident that the troubled website used for enrollment will be corrected and fully operational by the end of November.
The spying revelations also have created some tensions between the administration and Democrats. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and until now a staunch supporter of the NSA's surveillance, called for a "total review of all intelligence programs" following the Merkel reports.
She said that when it came to the NSA collecting intelligence on the leaders of allies such as France, Spain, Mexico and Germany, "Let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed."
In the House, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee, complained that the intelligence committees had been kept out of the loop about the collection of data on foreign leaders.
"Why did we not know that heads of state were being eavesdropped on, spied on?" she asked Obama administration intelligence officials on Tuesday. "We are the Intelligence Committee. And we did not -- we didn't know that. And now all of us, all of us, are dealing with a problem in our international relations. There will be changes."
With Congress renewing budget talks Wednesday, liberals have been outspoken in their insistence that Democrats vigorously resist efforts to reduce long-term deficits with savings in Social Security or Medicare. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who usually votes with Democrats, has been the most outspoken, saying he fears a budget deal will contain a proposal in Obama's budget to reduce cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and other benefit programs.
Obama, however, has proposed that remedy only if Republicans agree to raise tax revenue, a bargain that GOP lawmakers involved in the discussions made clear they would reject. Moreover, leaders from both parties as well as White House officials have signaled that in budget talks, they are looking for a small budget deal, not the type of "grand bargain" that would embrace such a revenue-for-benefit-cuts deal.
Still, many liberals warn that such cuts aren't palatable even if coupled with additional revenues.
"The idea, the notion that we're going to solve this problem or it's going to be OK if we were able to raise revenue and cut this thing back at the same time, it just isn't going to fly outside of Washington," said Jim Dean, chairman of the liberal advocacy group Democracy for America.
Follow Jim Kuhnhenn at http://twitter.com/jkuhnhenn
Contact: David Cameron david_cameron@hms.harvard.edu 617-432-0441 Harvard Medical School
Patterns found in cancer's chaos illuminate tumor evolution
For more than 100 years, researchers have been unable to explain why cancer cells contain abnormal numbers of chromosomes, a phenomenon known as aneuploidy. Many believed aneuploidy was simply a random byproduct of cancer.
Now, a team at Harvard Medical School has devised a way to understand patterns of aneuploidy in tumors and predict which genes in the affected chromosomes are likely to be cancer suppressors or promoters. They propose that aneuploidy is a driver of cancer rather than a result of it.
The study, to be published online in Cell on Oct. 31, offers a new theory of cancer development and could open the door for new treatment targets.
"If you look at a cancer cell, it looks like an unholy mess with gene deletions and amplifications, chromosome gains and losses, like someone threw a stick of dynamite into the cell. It seems random, but actually previous work has shown that there is a pattern to which chromosomes and chromosome arms are alteredand that means we can understand that pattern and how or if it drives cancer," said senior author Stephen Elledge, Gregor Mendel professor of Genetics and of Medicine at HMS and professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
"What we have done is to propose a new theory about how this works and then prove it using mathematical analysis," he said.
Mining for answers
For decades since the "oncogene revolution," cancer research has focused on mutationschanges in the DNA code that abnormally activate genes that promote cancer, called oncogenes, or deactivate genes that suppress cancer. The role of aneuploidyin which entire chromosomes or chromosome arms are added or deletedhas remained largely unstudied.
Elledge and his team, including research fellow and first author Teresa Davoli, suspected that aneuploidy has a significant role to play in cancer because missing or extra chromosomes likely affect genes involved in tumor-related processes such as cell division and DNA repair.
To test their hypothesis, the researchers developed a computer program called TUSON (Tumor Suppressor and Oncogene) Explorer together with Wei Xu and Peter Park at HMS and Brigham and Women's. The program analyzed genome sequence data from more than 8,200 pairs of cancerous and normal tissue samples in three preexisting databases.
They generated a list of suspected oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes based on their mutation patternsand found many more potential cancer drivers than anticipated. Then they ranked the suspects by how powerful an effect their deletion or duplication was likely to have on cancer development.
Next, the team looked at where the suspects normally appear in chromosomes.
They discovered that the number of tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes in a chromosome correlated with how often the whole chromosome or part of the chromosome was deleted or duplicated in cancers. Where there were concentrations of tumor suppressor genes alongside fewer oncogenes and fewer genes essential to survival, there was more chromosome deletion. Conversely, concentrations of oncogenes and fewer tumor suppressors coincided with more chromosome duplication.
When the team factored in gene potency, the correlations got even stronger. A cluster of highly potent tumor suppressors was more likely to mean chromosome deletion than a cluster of weak suppressors.
Number matters
Since 1971, the standard tumor suppressor model has held that cancer is caused by a "two-hit" cascade in which first one copy and then the second copy of a gene becomes mutated. Elledge argues that simply losing or gaining one copy of a gene through aneuploidy can influence tumor growth as well.
"The loss or gain of multiple cancer driver genes that individually have low potency can add up to have big effects," he said.
"It's a terrific study," said Angelika Amon, a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the project. "These novel algorithms of identifying tumor suppressors and oncogenes nicely provide an explanation of how aneuploidies evolve in cancer cells, and the realization that subtle changes in the activity of many different genes at the same time can contribute to tumorigenesis is an exciting and intriguing hypothesis."
These findings also may have answered a long-standing question about whether aneuploidy is a cause or effect of cancer, leaving researchers free to pursue the question of how.
"Aneuploidy is driving cancer, not simply a consequence of it," said Elledge. "Other things also matter, such as gene mutations, rearrangements and changes in expression. We don't know what the weighting is, but now we should be able to figure it out."
Going forward, Elledge and Davoli plan to gather experimental evidence to support their mathematical findings. That will include validating some of the new predicted tumor suppressors and oncogenes as well as "making some deletions and amplifications and seeing if they have the properties we think they do," said Elledge.
###
The research was supported by a Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Innovator Award, National Institutes of Health grant U54LM008748 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Written by Stephanie Dutchen
Harvard Medical School has more than 7,500 full-time faculty working in 11 academic departments located at the School's Boston campus or in one of 47 hospital-based clinical departments at 16 Harvard-affiliated teaching hospitals and research institutes. Those affiliates include Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Cambridge Health Alliance, Boston Children's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Hebrew Senior Life, Joslin Diabetes Center, Judge Baker Children's Center, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Massachusetts General Hospital, McLean Hospital, Mount Auburn Hospital, Schepens Eye Research Institute, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and VA Boston Healthcare System.
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Study offers new theory of cancer development
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
31-Oct-2013
[
| E-mail
]
Share
Contact: David Cameron david_cameron@hms.harvard.edu 617-432-0441 Harvard Medical School
Patterns found in cancer's chaos illuminate tumor evolution
For more than 100 years, researchers have been unable to explain why cancer cells contain abnormal numbers of chromosomes, a phenomenon known as aneuploidy. Many believed aneuploidy was simply a random byproduct of cancer.
Now, a team at Harvard Medical School has devised a way to understand patterns of aneuploidy in tumors and predict which genes in the affected chromosomes are likely to be cancer suppressors or promoters. They propose that aneuploidy is a driver of cancer rather than a result of it.
The study, to be published online in Cell on Oct. 31, offers a new theory of cancer development and could open the door for new treatment targets.
"If you look at a cancer cell, it looks like an unholy mess with gene deletions and amplifications, chromosome gains and losses, like someone threw a stick of dynamite into the cell. It seems random, but actually previous work has shown that there is a pattern to which chromosomes and chromosome arms are alteredand that means we can understand that pattern and how or if it drives cancer," said senior author Stephen Elledge, Gregor Mendel professor of Genetics and of Medicine at HMS and professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
"What we have done is to propose a new theory about how this works and then prove it using mathematical analysis," he said.
Mining for answers
For decades since the "oncogene revolution," cancer research has focused on mutationschanges in the DNA code that abnormally activate genes that promote cancer, called oncogenes, or deactivate genes that suppress cancer. The role of aneuploidyin which entire chromosomes or chromosome arms are added or deletedhas remained largely unstudied.
Elledge and his team, including research fellow and first author Teresa Davoli, suspected that aneuploidy has a significant role to play in cancer because missing or extra chromosomes likely affect genes involved in tumor-related processes such as cell division and DNA repair.
To test their hypothesis, the researchers developed a computer program called TUSON (Tumor Suppressor and Oncogene) Explorer together with Wei Xu and Peter Park at HMS and Brigham and Women's. The program analyzed genome sequence data from more than 8,200 pairs of cancerous and normal tissue samples in three preexisting databases.
They generated a list of suspected oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes based on their mutation patternsand found many more potential cancer drivers than anticipated. Then they ranked the suspects by how powerful an effect their deletion or duplication was likely to have on cancer development.
Next, the team looked at where the suspects normally appear in chromosomes.
They discovered that the number of tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes in a chromosome correlated with how often the whole chromosome or part of the chromosome was deleted or duplicated in cancers. Where there were concentrations of tumor suppressor genes alongside fewer oncogenes and fewer genes essential to survival, there was more chromosome deletion. Conversely, concentrations of oncogenes and fewer tumor suppressors coincided with more chromosome duplication.
When the team factored in gene potency, the correlations got even stronger. A cluster of highly potent tumor suppressors was more likely to mean chromosome deletion than a cluster of weak suppressors.
Number matters
Since 1971, the standard tumor suppressor model has held that cancer is caused by a "two-hit" cascade in which first one copy and then the second copy of a gene becomes mutated. Elledge argues that simply losing or gaining one copy of a gene through aneuploidy can influence tumor growth as well.
"The loss or gain of multiple cancer driver genes that individually have low potency can add up to have big effects," he said.
"It's a terrific study," said Angelika Amon, a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the project. "These novel algorithms of identifying tumor suppressors and oncogenes nicely provide an explanation of how aneuploidies evolve in cancer cells, and the realization that subtle changes in the activity of many different genes at the same time can contribute to tumorigenesis is an exciting and intriguing hypothesis."
These findings also may have answered a long-standing question about whether aneuploidy is a cause or effect of cancer, leaving researchers free to pursue the question of how.
"Aneuploidy is driving cancer, not simply a consequence of it," said Elledge. "Other things also matter, such as gene mutations, rearrangements and changes in expression. We don't know what the weighting is, but now we should be able to figure it out."
Going forward, Elledge and Davoli plan to gather experimental evidence to support their mathematical findings. That will include validating some of the new predicted tumor suppressors and oncogenes as well as "making some deletions and amplifications and seeing if they have the properties we think they do," said Elledge.
###
The research was supported by a Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Innovator Award, National Institutes of Health grant U54LM008748 and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Written by Stephanie Dutchen
Harvard Medical School has more than 7,500 full-time faculty working in 11 academic departments located at the School's Boston campus or in one of 47 hospital-based clinical departments at 16 Harvard-affiliated teaching hospitals and research institutes. Those affiliates include Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Cambridge Health Alliance, Boston Children's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Hebrew Senior Life, Joslin Diabetes Center, Judge Baker Children's Center, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Massachusetts General Hospital, McLean Hospital, Mount Auburn Hospital, Schepens Eye Research Institute, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and VA Boston Healthcare System.
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision established new limits on federal authority, IU paper says
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
31-Oct-2013
[
| E-mail
]
Share
Contact: George Vlahakis vlahakis@iu.edu 812-855-0846 Indiana University
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A new paper by an Indiana University professor sheds new light on the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, which many critics said threatens state sovereignty and individual liberties.
The paper comes at a time when problems with the act's implementation, particularly the creation of state health care exchanges, highlight the limits of federal capabilities and the importance of state cooperation in the success of domestic government programs.
In an article in Business Horizons, a journal published by IU's Kelley School of Business, Tim Lemper argues that the court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius actually established new limits on the power of the federal government.
"The court was heavily criticized for betraying the principles of federalism and limited government in the U.S. Constitution," Lemper said. "In reality, the court's decision placed groundbreaking limits on Congress' power to regulate commerce and use federal funds to pressure states into doing its bidding.
"These aspects of the court's decision received less attention in the popular media but may actually prove to have a more significant impact on the scope of federal power in the future," said Lemper, a clinical professor of business law at Kelley.
In his research, Lemper often takes a more critical approach to overlooked details in legislation and jurisprudence. Earlier research brought to light a drafting error in the federal trademark dilution statute, which led Congress to amend the law last fall.
In his paper, "The Supreme Struggle: 'Obamacare' and the New Limits on Federal Regulation," Lemper bases his arguments on two points raised in the court's opinion: new limits on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and to coerce states with the threat of losing federal funding.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the limits on Congress' power in the Constitution, and the reservation of powers to the states, were intended to protect individual liberty.
Details overlooked in media reports about the decision include what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent, called "a novel constraint" on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, a sweeping and seemingly unlimited power that has been used to uphold a broad range of federal regulations on activity far beyond traditional commercial transactions, Lemper said.
"Set in historical context, the court's decision is significant because it establishes a new limit on Congress' expansive power under the Commerce Clause," he wrote. "Five of the nine justices concluded that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate existing commercial activity, but does not allow Congress to compel individuals to become active in commerce.
"In other words, Congress can regulate activity under the Commerce Clause, but it cannot regulate inactivity."
Applying this rationale to the Affordable Care Act, the majority on the court concluded that the individual mandate (requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty) exceeded Congress' power to regulate commerce because it compelled people to engage in commerce by buying health insurance.
"That the court still upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' more limited power to lay and collect taxes does not diminish the significance of the limit that it placed on Congress' more expansive power to regulate interstate commerce," Lemper said. "Congress' power to lay and collect taxes is more limited and less coercive than its power to regulate interstate commerce, which -- before this decision -- increasingly appeared to have no limit."
"The court's decision precludes Congress from venturing into new regulatory territory under the guise of regulating commerce," he said. "At the very least, it forecloses future governmental regulation that uses a person's inaction as a basis to compel them to act."
Lemper said the court's decision also broke new ground in restricting Congress' power under the Spending Clause. Seven of the justices -- "a majority of rare size for this court" -- held that the Affordable Care Act wrongly coerced states into accepting the Medicare expansion by threatening them with the loss of all Medicare funding (a significant portion of states' budgets) if they refused to do so.
"The court's decision is remarkable because it is the first time that the court has ever struck down a federal law under the Spending Clause on the ground that it runs counter to the system of federalism in the Constitution," he added. "For decades, the court has recognized the possibility that the federalism principles could limit Congress' power under the Spending Clause, but it had never actually done so until its decision on the Affordable Care Act.
"Its landmark holding gives real teeth to limits on Congress' power that had previously only existed in theory."
###
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision established new limits on federal authority, IU paper says
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
31-Oct-2013
[
| E-mail
]
Share
Contact: George Vlahakis vlahakis@iu.edu 812-855-0846 Indiana University
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A new paper by an Indiana University professor sheds new light on the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, which many critics said threatens state sovereignty and individual liberties.
The paper comes at a time when problems with the act's implementation, particularly the creation of state health care exchanges, highlight the limits of federal capabilities and the importance of state cooperation in the success of domestic government programs.
In an article in Business Horizons, a journal published by IU's Kelley School of Business, Tim Lemper argues that the court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius actually established new limits on the power of the federal government.
"The court was heavily criticized for betraying the principles of federalism and limited government in the U.S. Constitution," Lemper said. "In reality, the court's decision placed groundbreaking limits on Congress' power to regulate commerce and use federal funds to pressure states into doing its bidding.
"These aspects of the court's decision received less attention in the popular media but may actually prove to have a more significant impact on the scope of federal power in the future," said Lemper, a clinical professor of business law at Kelley.
In his research, Lemper often takes a more critical approach to overlooked details in legislation and jurisprudence. Earlier research brought to light a drafting error in the federal trademark dilution statute, which led Congress to amend the law last fall.
In his paper, "The Supreme Struggle: 'Obamacare' and the New Limits on Federal Regulation," Lemper bases his arguments on two points raised in the court's opinion: new limits on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and to coerce states with the threat of losing federal funding.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the limits on Congress' power in the Constitution, and the reservation of powers to the states, were intended to protect individual liberty.
Details overlooked in media reports about the decision include what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent, called "a novel constraint" on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, a sweeping and seemingly unlimited power that has been used to uphold a broad range of federal regulations on activity far beyond traditional commercial transactions, Lemper said.
"Set in historical context, the court's decision is significant because it establishes a new limit on Congress' expansive power under the Commerce Clause," he wrote. "Five of the nine justices concluded that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate existing commercial activity, but does not allow Congress to compel individuals to become active in commerce.
"In other words, Congress can regulate activity under the Commerce Clause, but it cannot regulate inactivity."
Applying this rationale to the Affordable Care Act, the majority on the court concluded that the individual mandate (requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty) exceeded Congress' power to regulate commerce because it compelled people to engage in commerce by buying health insurance.
"That the court still upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' more limited power to lay and collect taxes does not diminish the significance of the limit that it placed on Congress' more expansive power to regulate interstate commerce," Lemper said. "Congress' power to lay and collect taxes is more limited and less coercive than its power to regulate interstate commerce, which -- before this decision -- increasingly appeared to have no limit."
"The court's decision precludes Congress from venturing into new regulatory territory under the guise of regulating commerce," he said. "At the very least, it forecloses future governmental regulation that uses a person's inaction as a basis to compel them to act."
Lemper said the court's decision also broke new ground in restricting Congress' power under the Spending Clause. Seven of the justices -- "a majority of rare size for this court" -- held that the Affordable Care Act wrongly coerced states into accepting the Medicare expansion by threatening them with the loss of all Medicare funding (a significant portion of states' budgets) if they refused to do so.
"The court's decision is remarkable because it is the first time that the court has ever struck down a federal law under the Spending Clause on the ground that it runs counter to the system of federalism in the Constitution," he added. "For decades, the court has recognized the possibility that the federalism principles could limit Congress' power under the Spending Clause, but it had never actually done so until its decision on the Affordable Care Act.
"Its landmark holding gives real teeth to limits on Congress' power that had previously only existed in theory."
###
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Los Angeles (AFP) - US and Mexican authorities have unearthed another sophisticated "supertunnel" used to smuggle drugs beneath their common border, the third since 2011, officials said Thursday.
Zig-zagging for a third of a mile beneath the border between San Diego and Tijuana, the newly-constructed tunnel was equipped with an electric-powered rail system to carry the drugs, as well as ventilation.
For the first time, agents seized cocaine intended to be smuggled through the tunnel as well as more than eight tons of marijuana, indicating that Mexican drug cartels are getting increasingly "desperate," they said.
"These cartels are foolish to think they're shoveling under the radar," said US Attorney for Southern California Laura Duffy at a press conference outside the San Diego warehouse where the US end of the tunnel was found Wednesday.
Investigators released video footage of the tunnel, which they stressed was uncovered before it had been been used.
In a message to drug smugglers including notably Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, Duffy vowed: "If you continue to build and attempt to use these tunnels, we are determined to make this a big waste of your dirty money."
Three people were arrested and authorities seized the huge marijuana haul as well as 325 pounds of cocaine, which is usually transported in smaller quantities and does not come through tunnels.
"Their traditional routes are failing at this point. They're very desperate. They'll do anything they can to get into the US," said Bill Sherman, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)'s San Diego office.
As with two other "supertunnels" discovered in 2011, agents pounced before it had even become operational. "They did not move one gram of narcotics thru that tunnel," said Sherman.
Law enforcement authorities were increasingly seeing attempts to bring narcotics including cocaine and methamphetamines over the border through tunnels, or micro-light aircraft.
"Those are acts of desperation," he said.
The tunnel was built at an average depth of 35 feet, and was 4 feet high by 3 feet wide, said Derek Benner of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Construction likely took a year or more, officials said, adding that it was the work of "engineers and architects." It included hydraulically-controlled steel doors.
Of the three arrested, two were detained in connection with the cocaine seized, and one, a Mexican national, was held over the marijuana haul. All face a maximum of 10 years to life in jail, officials said.
In Tijuana, a Mexican security source said the tunnel was accessed at the southern end by a metal stairway down to a depth of 20 meters, from a building about 80 meters from the border fence.
Discoveries of such underground passageways along the US-Mexico border are not uncommon and authorities say they are used by organized crime groups to traffick drugs and people into the United States.
The tunnel was the eighth large scale such structure discovered since 2006, and the fifth intercepted since 2010.
Over 77,000 people have died in drug-linked violence since 2006, when troops were deployed to battle drug cartels, including under ex president Felipe Calderon and his successor Enrique Pena Nieto, who took office last year.
This undated photo provided by Christie's shows the Fender Stratocaster a young Bob Dylan played at the historic 1965 Newport Folk Festival. On Dec. 6, 2013, it could bring as much as half a million dollars when it comes up for auction in New York. The festival marked the first time Dylan went electric, a defining moment that marked his move from acoustic folk to electric rock and roll, drawing boos from folk-music purists. (AP Photo/Christie's)
This undated photo provided by Christie's shows the Fender Stratocaster a young Bob Dylan played at the historic 1965 Newport Folk Festival. On Dec. 6, 2013, it could bring as much as half a million dollars when it comes up for auction in New York. The festival marked the first time Dylan went electric, a defining moment that marked his move from acoustic folk to electric rock and roll, drawing boos from folk-music purists. (AP Photo/Christie's)
This undated photo provided by Christie's shows the Fender Stratocaster a young Bob Dylan played at the historic 1965 Newport Folk Festival. On Dec. 6, 2013, it could bring as much as half a million dollars when it comes up for auction at Christie's New York. The festival marked the first time Dylan went electric, a defining moment that marked his move from acoustic folk to electric rock and roll, drawing boos from folk-music purists. (AP Photo/Christie's)
NEW YORK (AP) — The sunburst Fender Stratocaster that a young Bob Dylan played at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival when he famously went electric, perhaps the most historic instrument in rock 'n' roll, is coming up for auction, where it could bring as much as half a million dollars.
Though now viewed as changing American music forever, Dylan's three-song electric set at the Rhode Island festival that marked his move from acoustic folk to electric rock 'n' roll was met by boos from folk purists in the crowd who viewed him as a traitor. He returned for an acoustic encore with "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue."
The guitar is being offered for sale Dec. 6, Christie's told The Associated Press. Five lots of hand- and typewritten lyric fragments found inside the guitar case — early versions of some of Dylan's legendary songs — also are being sold. The lyrics have a pre-sale estimate ranging from $3,000 to $30,000.
With a classic sunburst finish and original flat-wound strings, the guitar has been in the possession of a New Jersey family for nearly 50 years. Dylan left it on a private plane piloted by the owner's late father, Vic Quinto, who worked for Dylan's manager.
His daughter, Dawn Peterson, of Morris County, N.J., has said her father asked the management company what to do with the guitar but nobody ever got back to him.
Last year, she took it to the PBS show "History Detectives" to try to have it authenticated. The program enlisted the expertise of Andy Babiuk, a consultant to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and owner of an upstate New York vintage instrument shop, and Jeff Gold, a Dylan memorabilia expert. Both men, who appeared on the episode, unequivocally declared the artifacts belonged to Dylan.
Babiuk took the instrument apart and also compared it to close-up color photos of the guitar taken at the 1965 festival.
"I was able to match the wood grain on the body of the guitar ... and the unique grain of the rosewood fingerboard. Wood grains are like fingerprints, no two are exactly alike," Babiuk said in an interview. "Based on the sum of the evidence, I was able to identify that this guitar was the one that Bob Dylan had played in Newport."
Dylan's attorney and his publicist did not respond to email and phone requests for comment. Dylan and Peterson, who declined to be interviewed, recently settled a legal dispute over the items.
The terms of the settlement were not disclosed but allowed Peterson to sell the guitar and lyrics, according to Rolling Stone, which wrote in July about Peterson's quest to authenticate the guitar.
"Representatives for Bob Dylan do not contest the sale of the guitar, and are aware of Christie's plan to bring it to auction," a statement issued through Christie's said.
Dylan has generally looked upon his instruments to convey his art, akin to a carpenter's hammer, Howard Kramer, curatorial director of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, said last year. "I don't think he's dwelled on a guitar he hasn't played for 47 years," he said. "If he cared about it, he would have done something about it."
Festival founder George Wein told the AP that when Dylan finished playing, Wein was backstage and told him to go back out and play an acoustic number because that's what people expected. Dylan said he didn't want to do it and said he couldn't because he only had the electric guitar. Wein called out for a loaner backstage and about 20 musicians raised their acoustic guitars to offer them.
The lyrics for sale include "In the Darkness of Your Room," an early draft of "Absolutely Sweet Marie" from Dylan's "Blonde on Blonde" album, and three songs from the record's 1965 recording session that were not released until the 1980s: "Medicine Sunday" (the draft is titled "Midnight Train"), "Jet Pilot" and "I Wanna Be Your Lover."
Dylan's "going electric changed the structure of folk music," the 88-year-old Wein said. "The minute Dylan went electric, all these young people said, 'Bobby's going electric, we're going electric, too.'"
___
Associated Press writer Michelle R. Smith in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010, AT 6:19 PM Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma
FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2011, AT 3:07 PM Obama Gets Firsthand Look at a Tornado Damage
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010, AT 6:19 PM Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long. Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long.
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010, AT 6:19 PM Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long. Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long.
The “Independent Women” songstress sings her new song “God Made You Beautiful” on the trailer, a song she dedicated to her daughter Blue Ivy.
Beyonce croons, “When you were born/The angels sighed in delight/They never thought they'd see such a beautiful sight.”
Knowles’ ditty is a follow-up to husband Jay Z’s song “Glory,” also dedicated to Blue. He raps, “The most amazing feeling I feel, words can't describe what I'm feeling for real / Baby, I paint the sky blue, my greatest creation was you.”
She’s been eager to give her son Hank Jr a little brother or sister, and now Kendra Wilkinson has proclaimed she has a bun in the oven.
Confirming the rampant rumors, the “Girls Next Door” dame tweeted a photo of her positive pregnancy test on Thursday (October 30) and a big smile.
Wilkinson added the caption, “Round two. Here we go!! :) #ClearBlueConfirmed,” and now she and hubby Hank Baskett will prepare for the arrival.
Last month, Kendra told press, "We're at that point in our lives where everywhere we look, we're 100%. Now we know it's time to have another child. Last year, we were 50%, a couple of months ago we were 60%, and now we're 100%. We're really happy and that's the time to have a child — when you're happy."
Apple, like many big companies, gets confused for its stock. Like any public company, it's also subject to intense scrutiny, including from people who simply don't understand its position or business, or who simply want to take advantage of it. Felix Salmon does a great job explaining why that is, and what should be done about it. Source: Reuters
Steve Jobs always regretted going public. He raised very little money by doing so, and in return he ended up with people like Carl Icahn constantly second-guessing his decisions. Jobs was good at ignoring such gadflies; his successor, Tim Cook, is a little more shareholder-friendly. But shareholders really do nothing for Apple, which hasn’t had a public stock offering in living memory, and which has so much money now that it can pay its employees large amounts of cash to retain talent, instead of having to force them to gamble with restricted stock units.
In other words, Apple should be run a bit like Bloomberg: as a profitable company which pays well, which concentrates first and foremost on making its product as great as possible, and which doesn’t try to be something it’s not, or allow itself to be distracted with financial engineering. Sometimes its stock will go up, and sometimes its stock will go down. But the company, and its core values, will endure.
Both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have said this repeatedly. They worry about the top line and let the bottom line take care of itself. They pay attention to making great products, not the stock price. I can see how that no doubt drives some people crazy. Good. The insanity and manipulations of the market deserve some crazy back.
President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 21, 2013, on the initial rollout of the health care overhaul. Obama acknowledged that the widespread problems with his health care law's rollout are unacceptable, as the administration scrambles to fix the cascade of computer issues. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 21, 2013, on the initial rollout of the health care overhaul. Obama acknowledged that the widespread problems with his health care law's rollout are unacceptable, as the administration scrambles to fix the cascade of computer issues. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just two weeks after President Barack Obama saw his Democratic Party put up an unyielding front against Republicans, his coalition is showing signs of stress.
From health care to spying to pending budget deals, many congressional Democrats are challenging the administration and pushing for measures that the White House has not embraced.
Some Democrats are seeking to extend the enrollment period for new health care exchanges. Others want to place restraints on National Security Administration surveillance capabilities. Still others are standing tough against any budget deal that uses long-term reductions in major benefit programs to offset immediate cuts in defense.
Though focused on disparate issues, the Democrats' anxieties are connected by timing and stand out all the more when contrasted with the remarkable unity the party displayed during the recent showdown over the partial government shutdown and the confrontation over raising the nation's borrowing limit.
"That moment was always going to be fleeting," said Matt Bennett, who worked in the Clinton White House and who regularly consults with Obama aides. "The White House, every White House, understands that these folks, driven either by principle or the demands of the politics of their state, have to put daylight between themselves and the president on occasion."
Obama and the Democrats emerged from the debt and shutdown clash with what they wanted: a reopened government, a higher debt ceiling and a Republican Party reeling in the depths of public opinion polls.
But within days, attention turned to the problem-riddled launch of the 3-year-old health care law's enrollment stage and revelations that the U.S. had been secretly monitoring the communications of as many as 35 allied leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And with new budget talks underway, Democratic Party liberals reiterated demands that Obama not agree to changes that reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits even in the improbable event Republicans agree to increase budget revenues.
The fraying on the Democratic Party edges is hardly unraveling Obama's support and it pales when compared to the upheaval within the Republican Party as it distances itself from the tactics of tea party conservatives. But the pushback from Democrats comes as Obama is trying to draw renewed attention to his agenda, including passage of an immigration overhaul, his jobs initiatives and the benefits of his health care law.
The computer troubles that befell the start of health insurance sign-ups have caused the greatest anxiety. Republicans pounced on the difficulties as evidence of deeper flaws in the law. But Democrats, even as they defended the policy, also demanded answers in the face of questions from their constituents.
"The fact is that the administration really failed these Americans," Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., told Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner at a hearing this week. "So going forward there can be just no more excuses."
In the Senate, 10 Democrats signed on to a letter seeking an unspecified extension of the enrollment period, which ends March 31. "As you continue to fix problems with the website and the enrollment process, it is critical that the administration be open to modifications that provide greater flexibility for the American people seeking to access health insurance," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., wrote.
Another Democratic senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has called for a one-year delay in the requirement that virtually all Americans have health insurance or pay a fine.
Democrats who have talked to White House officials in recent days describe them as rattled by the health care blunders. But they say they are confident that the troubled website used for enrollment will be corrected and fully operational by the end of November.
The spying revelations also have created some tensions between the administration and Democrats. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and until now a staunch supporter of the NSA's surveillance, called for a "total review of all intelligence programs" following the Merkel reports.
She said that when it came to the NSA collecting intelligence on the leaders of allies such as France, Spain, Mexico and Germany, "Let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed."
With Congress renewing budget talks Wednesday, liberals have been outspoken in their insistence that Democrats vigorously resist efforts to reduce long-term deficits with savings in Social Security or Medicare. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who usually votes with Democrats, has been the most outspoken, saying he fears a budget deal will contain a proposal in Obama's budget to reduce cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and other benefit programs.
Obama, however, has proposed that remedy only if Republicans agree to raise tax revenue, a bargain that most in the GOP firmly oppose. Moreover, leaders from both parties as well as White House officials have signaled that budget talks are looking for a small budget deal, not the type of "grand bargain" that would embrace such a revenue-for-benefit-cuts deal.
Warren Buffett (left), Howard G. Buffett (center) and grandson Howard W. Buffett collaborated on a book about the challenges of feeding more than 2 billion more mouths by 2050.
Scott Eells/Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Warren Buffett (left), Howard G. Buffett (center) and grandson Howard W. Buffett collaborated on a book about the challenges of feeding more than 2 billion more mouths by 2050.
Scott Eells/Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Oh, what a job. You've got $3 billion to address society's most intractable problems. So what do you do?
If you're philanthropist Howard G. Buffett, son of famed investor Warren Buffett, you set a deadline: 40 years.
And you move at "fast-forward" speed (that's the way Warren describes his son's pace) to steer the most vulnerable people on Earth towards a future where food production is efficient, plentiful and affordable.
Warren Buffett, Howard G. Buffett, and grandson Howard W. Buffett sat down to talk with us earlier this week about their new book, 40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World. Howard G. Buffett wrote most of the book, but his son, Howard W. Buffett, contributed several chapters.
In the foreward, written by Warren Buffett, he describes his son Howard G. as the Indiana Jones of his field. And as we've reported, Howard G. — who is most at home when inside the cab of a big ol' tractor — has lots of ideas about how we can feed more than 2 billion more mouths by 2050.
Among his many conclusions: Africa needs better seeds; fighting the drug trade can influence food insecurity; and more fertilizer isn't always the solution to maximizing farmers' yields.
Following are excerpts from our conversation. They have been edited for brevity and clarity.
ALLISON AUBREY:Howard G., You are passionate about finding solutions and I'm wondering if you and your son have any differences in the solutions you see going forward ?
HOWARD G: I think we're pretty much on the same page. The whole concept behind Forty Chances is really a mindset: If everybody thought they had to put themselves out of business in 40 years, you had 40 chances to succeed in what your primary goals are, you would probably be more urgent and you would be forced to change quicker. You can't just stick with something that doesn't work. And we stuck with some things that don't work for a long time.
AUBREY:And what's an example of that?
HOWARD G.: Well, you still find a number of NGOs, non-governmental organizations, that continue to spend huge amounts of money on projects and we found out — and we did that, actually, for quite a while we spent plenty of money on it and we just learned that if you want to change big problems, you have to change them with scale.
And we also learned something that I really didn't want to engage in for quite a long time, which was advocacy in terms of policy change. We've learned that project by project, you can't change millions and millions of lives. And it's ineffective in terms of making a huge difference if you've got ... bad polices. [They] will defeat good ideas and good people. So there isn't any choice in our mind today that we have to engage in advocacy.
AUBREY: Can you give me an example of something you would advocate for in terms of policy change?
HOWARD G.: Yeah, we don't have the kind of farm labor we need to do two things: one is to pick all the food and collect all the food that we grow, there's a huge amount of waste. Second of all, that waste is a great opportunity for food banks. And then we have to have volunteer base incentives to support a volunteer base to move that food into the food bank system. There's millions and millions of pounds of food that could be used for that, and a lot of it is good food. It's nutritious food.
AUBREY:Warren, when you listen to these kinds of solutions, does this make sense to you?
WARREN: It does make sense. And one thing you always have to remember about philanthropy is that in business, the market system tells you fairly promptly whether you've got a good idea or not. If you've got a product and people don't like it, it doesn't move and you've got to do something else.
In philanthropy, you can keep doing things that don't work over and over again. ... So I love the fact that Howie, as well as my other two children, constantly test their ideas against whether they really are working and have a healthy suspicion of anything that's proposed.
It's somewhat different from business, because in philanthropy you're tackling the very tough problems that have resisted intellect and money in the past. In business you're looking for something easy to do, maybe just a new improved product that will sell a little bit better than the previous one. So in philanthropy, if you're doing important things, you have to expect mistakes.
DAN CHARLES:There are a number things that get a lot of criticism in U.S. farm policy: biofuel mandates; arrangements for food aid to the third world; and farm subsidies, which have migrated into the form of crop insurance — some people say gold-plated crop insurance. Are those big problems? Do you subscribe to those criticisms?
HOWARD G.: On biofuels, I would say that there's an effort that I would support that moves away from the actual subsidization of biofuels. Biofuels can stand on their own merits at this point. And I think they have places where they fit well and make sense, and places probably where they don't.
We've had a couple of crazy policies on food aid. One of them being that you have to have 50 percent shipped on U.S. vessels. That is so archaic. It should have been done away with a long time ago. It costs the taxpayers money and it costs people who need the food. And it's really simple to understand that. That is pure politics, not in the interest of the people who are hungry and not the taxpayers.
On farm subsidies, your term 'gold-plated crop insurance' is a great way to say it. Crop insurance is probably one of the best ways to protect the downside in a very difficult business, but last year — and I know this factually, not because I've benefited from it, but because I know neighbors who did — they benefited more from the revenue from crop insurance than if they had had a good average crop. That's a gold-plated policy and it's not the right policy. Crop insurance should be a policy that keeps people from going broke, to make sure they can farm next year, but not to make them rich.
AUBREY:Howard W., issues of sustainability and stewardship of the land seem to be increasingly important to your generation. [Howard W. is 30.] From your perspective, what types of policies are needed to support issues of sustainability and protecting natural resources?
HOWARD W.: One of the most important policies, from my perspective and my own personal experience, has been the conservation stewardship program that the USDA has in place (CSP, for short). [This program] rewards farmers who have taken on new conservation-based approaches for water quality, for the water table, for their soil or for their air quality.
What's promising for me is that the federal government is now recognizing an actual monetary value of those improvement practices.
[In the book,] we have a specific chapter on a farmer in Northwest Iowa named Clay Mitchell. Clay has done an unbelievable job of improving the productivity of his farmland by 20 to 30 percent over all of his neighbors, and he's done it in a way that continues to build the organic material in the soil and continues to improve the environment all around him. And he really is a superstar when it comes to farmers. We need more leaders in the farming sector who continue to look at the value of their soil over time and what they can do to improve it, because it also has the return of increasing their revenue.
AUBREY: I'm curious about micronutrients. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on how to get food into people that's more nutrient dense.
HOWARD G.: I think the science will develop. It is developing. The challenge we have is a lot of the discussion immediately goes to GMOs, and it gets very confused about what GMOs are and what they aren't and how you provide solutions. ... But it's going to have to be done in a way that the knowledge is clearly based on evidence and science and, you know, there's this huge fear factor when it comes to GMOs.
Aubrey:What do you think feeds the fear?
HOWARD G.: I think the biggest legitimate concern is what will we have in 20 or 30 years as a consequence of GMOs that we don't understand today? There isn't anything today scientifically that I've seen that indicates that that should be a great fear. But I think also, it's not 100 percent clear, and that's where we have to rely on government regulation and government agencies to do the best job they can. To make sure how things are implemented allow us to adjust to that and adjust to what we learn in the future. It's pretty complex, and you have some very polarized opinions on it and different agendas on it and that makes it tough, particularly in the area of politics.
AUBREY: And Howard W., how do you see this issue of GMOs playing out?
HOWARD W.: I'm not going to make a prediction on it. I don't feel it's my place. I use GMO crops on my farm in Nebraska and it's allowed us to remain productive and profitable in what we're doing. ... It's the issue where everybody wants to make a sound bite out of it and draw a quick conclusion and that's what does the damage. If we can really have an evidence-based discussion that is driven by science, then that is going to get us to the point where we can use this technology to save a lot of lives and improve a lot of people's lives, and that should be what people care about. What's very irritating is the people that typically are throwing stones, either don't give other solutions or they are certainly not the ones who are hungry. This has got to be about solutions and not simply about attacking things. Solutions are feeding more people, having less people hungry. Solutions can't be, "Let's just stick with the status quo." The solutions are: How do we use technology in an informed way that is safe and help people?
CHARLES: There's one chapter, I believe Howard W. wrote, about NGOs and fundraising and how NGOs get in each other's way. Are NGOs really destructively getting in each other's way, and is there a better alternative?
Howard W. Buffett visited Thailand in early 2006 and investigated the work of NGOs that had responded to the Indian Ocean tsunami. He saw a "dramatic disconnect" between what local people wanted, and what NGOs from outside the region had imposed. One consequence, he concluded, was tremendous waste of aid resources.
HOWARD W.: First and foremost, a lot has to change from the donor community. Those organizations and foundations, even the government, have to do a much better job of prioritizing the leadership that local communities can take in finding the best solution for themselves and creating sustainable, eventually income-generating [activities] for their people. It can be tough sometimes to channel that energy, but we have to constantly be questioning ourselves and always trying to do a better job, no matter what it is we're doing.
HOWARD G.: I've got to add — I was in Chennai, India, after the tsunami and traveled to two other coastal areas down south. They were rejecting aid for the most part, and I will tell you, they did a pretty amazing job, on their own, getting things organized. And it was interesting to see a country that controlled aid quite tightly and did an unbelievable job of responding.
AUBREY: I know there are lots of stories of social change, but how would you summarize the message of your book Forty Chances?
HOWARD G.: The message is: You've got about 40 years in your lifetime to achieve the best things, the biggest things you want to achieve and look at it like, in 40 years you're going to be out of business. So that means you've got to invest in the best people, you've got to understand that everything is local and everything is personal. But yet you've got to do it at scale, and it means you've got to take risks and you've got to be willing to fail.
HOWARD W.: From my own personal lens, I would say the biggest take away for me is that a single individual, when given the opportunity, can change the world. We have to keep that in mind and not lose hope in the face of so many challenges that we're looking at all over the globe. For me personally, I have seen that through what my grandfather has accomplished in his career, and I've seen that through what my dad has already been able to do now through the foundation. And if people keep that mindset as well, it will provide them the energy and the determination to endure through whatever challenge they are trying to overcome.
AUBREY: Warren, does this make you optimistic?
Warren: I am optimistic. I feel terrifically about what all my three of my children are doing in philanthropy. We've been fortunate to make a whole lot more money than anybody can spend intelligently on themselves, so the object is to spend it intelligently on the rest of the world.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t5kd5kGQCkvqCBBzm_JBeyTprbOZG2-xAgXqOcvX9R7m9A4Jx2LdTCLb7yNas3kW4foiTNGMPtyZEOB_TFvaa5J0GPD-WMQu9OesFQCTE=s0-d){kind=small}
Share
Source: