The vice presidential debate can be summed up in two words: forgettable and anticlimactic.

After all the hype leading up to the debate, it was extremely anticlimactic. Even the New York Times‘ Adam Nagourney led off his analysis with: “Gov. Sarah Palin made it through the vice-presidential debate on Thursday without doing any definite damage to the Republican presidential ticket.”

There will be no outstanding “moments” taken away from the Palin-Biden debate in St. Louis on Thursday night, October 2, in St. Louis at Washington University. There will be no standout sound bites of one candidate really “zinging” his or her opponent, although Senator Biden did get a pleasurable laugh from the audience when he called Senator McCain’s health care credit the “ultimate bridge to nowhere.” Nor will there be sound bites of overt and usable gaffes to bludgeon the opposition with in political ads leading up to Election Day.

And Gwen Ifill, the moderator, seemed to perform with professional impartiality, possibly to the detriment of publicity for her forthcoming book.

By the time the House of Representatives vote on the $700 billion bailout (now the $850 billion rescue package), the vice presidential debate will be nearly forgotten. With the second presidential debate set for Tuesday, October 7, the major media outlets will begin focusing on that debate, leaving pundits and radio talk show hosts to parse the nuances and talking point problems that occurred at the vice presidential debate.

And Palin may have done more good than harm for her presidential ticket. Showing the same poise and certitude she used against her opponents while running for the governorship of Alaska, Palin performed quite well. She certainly performed better than in those now notoriously damaging interviews with ABC’s Charles Gibson and CBS’ Katie Couric. No doubt her performance helped bolster flagging support among members of the Republican Party, where confidence in the Governor was beginning to noticeably wane.

Because Governor Sarah Palin did her job. She debated well, gave as good as she got, and did not atomize and burn as some had thought she might (and some had hoped she would). Senator Joe Biden did not insert either of his feet directly into his mouth as some had thought he might (and some had hoped he would). Which led to a gorgeous formulaic debate.

And somewhat forgettable.

But definitely anticlimactic.

Who Won The Vice Presidential Debate?

Senator Joe Biden looked like the tolerant father, allowing the impetuous but promising daughter to have her say. Sarah Palin played her part heavenly well, except for the occasional over-the-top folksiness that made her come off as a theatrical former car salesman. But Biden did not condescend and Palin did not get strident. All in all, they performed well for their respective parties.

But it wasn’t all smooth sailing for the Governor.

Palin winked at the camera, talked to the camera, appealed to the blue-collar crowd (“Joe Six-pack”) and the suburban mother (“hockey moms”). She said “Darn it” and “doggone it” and probably won over a few people out there with her overdone folksy manner. She said “nucular” several times, sounding like a female George W. Bush. And she got lost in her own rambling when asked about global warming. Besides a couple of exceptions, when she reminded Biden of voting to go to war in Iraq (even though he now opposes the war) and a few of his positions that disagreed with those of his running mate, Senator Barack Obama.

Palin did well as long as she stuck to the generalities. When she went into specifics, Biden shot her down. When she went after Obama’s tax plan and said it would hurt a disproportionate number of small business owners, Biden corrected her and said that 95% of the small business owners in the United States make less than $250,000, so they would be unaffected by the tax increases. When Palin said that Obama voted against a bill funding the military in Iraq, Biden reminded her and the American viewing public that John McCain voted against that same bill. When she came assist and repeated herself, Biden had to re-remind her. When she championed Senator McCain’s backing of the “surge” in Iraq, Biden reminded everyone of the unfortunately optimistic remarks made by McCain at the war’s outset and that he had no exit strategy for the war in Iraq.

The only major news outlet giving Palin the win in the vice presidential debate was Fox News. Although many agreed that she did well and did nothing to jeopardize the McCain-Palin notice, Biden staying on point and deflecting Palin’s specific attacks made him the debate winner.

And when Governor Palin went to the “maverick” well one too many times, Biden pounced. After saying that Senator McCain was the “consummate maverick” and that “Change is coming” with McCain to lead the reform, Biden asked moderator Gwen Ifill if he could acknowledge. After her assent, he said:

“Look, the maverick — let’s talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He’s been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives.

He voted four out of five times for George Bush’s budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he’s got there.

He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against — he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.

He’s not been a maverick on the war. He’s not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.

Can we send — can we get Mom’s MRI? Can we send Mary abet to school next semester? We can’t — we can’t make it. How are we going to heat the — heat the house this winter?

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.

So maverick he is not on the vital, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.”

Best Point Made That Most People Will Overlook

Near the demolish of the debate, Gwen Ifill asked Sarah Palin to elaborate on her remark that she was “thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate,” Palin made her most devastating mistake. When asked by Ifill if she agreed with vice president Dick Cheney’s interpretation of his Constitutional duties, that the vice president’s office was not totally part of the executive branch and that it was also part of the legislative branch, Palin showed her ignorance of the Constitution. After a platitude about the Founding Fathers, she stated:

“…Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation…”

Senator Joe Biden, who is an adjunct professor on Constitutional Law at Widener University School of Law in Delaware, responded by calling Cheney the most dangerous vice president in American history. He stated:

“The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”

As for the Constitution outlining the vice president’s Senatorial duties, Biden said, “The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre conception invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very risky.”

It is interesting to note that Governor Palin’s plot on the centralization of government in the executive branch dovetails well with that of the Bush administration, which has been criticized for its arrogation of power and its marginalization of Congressional and Supreme Court checks.

The Biggest Missed Opportunity

Senator Joe Biden stayed with the Democratic program nearly all night, going after Senator McCain and leaving Governor Palin alone when she talked about her own accomplishments. The only time he seemed to hit her was with his line about the “ultimate bridge to nowhere,” a reference to the now noted bridge that was to be built in Alaska with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

But the one chance to really score a assert hit on Governor Palin was when she was lauded her record as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and pointed out that she had lowered taxes every year as major. Biden let this pass. He should have reminded the audience that Sarah Palin left the town of Wasilla $23 million in debt, drawing a parallel with the Bush tax cuts and the current state of the American economy.

Another missed opportunity, albeit a smaller one was Governor Palin’s explain that the troop levels in Iraq are lower now than before the “surge.” That is incorrect. There are 152,000 American troops in Iraq – 17,000 more than there were before the “surge” began.

Biden is an expert on foreign affairs. Letting this comment slide indicates that he was on his best behavior and trying not to observe like the superior know-it-all for which he has on occasion be accused.

Without The Gaffes, The Vice Presidential Debate Between Palin and Biden Will Recede

But, still, it was forgettable.

Neither candidate exceeded expectations. Despite all the spinning prior to the debate in attempts to lower the expectations of one candidate and raise expectations of the opposer, only the completely gullible would have seen the debate for anything other than what it was: a good debate. Biden did not exceed expectations because he has over three decades of governing experience and is known to be a good orator. He was expected to win. Palin, despite those embarrassing interviews, is also known to be suitable at debating. The only people who thought she would do terrible were hopeful detractors.

What the debate did provide, however, was disappointment.

It was disappointing in that nothing exciting happened. Neither candidate really nailed the other with a memorable “zinger” that will be talked about for the next several elections. Palin did not flail and flounder. She did not say anything overtly outlandish. Joe Biden did not invent foot-in-mouth disease or utter some ill-conceived gaffe. In that regard, the vice presidential debate did not even meet expectations.

And what of the moderator? Did Gwen Ifill’s book about black politicians induce her in some subtle design to ensure that the debate was geared toward Senator Obama’s running mate? Not that anyone other than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity might be able to discern. Gwen Ifill did not show an overwhelming bias toward Senator Joe Biden as the conservatives had charged she might, nor did she serve up an over-compensatory bias toward Governor Sarah Palin.

The only aspect of the debate that exceeded expectations was Governor Palin’s extremely complimentary dim ensemble, a noticeable difference from her usual austere Mao-like tunic and Kmart chic.

Otherwise, it was so anticlimactic as to be forgettable.

Source:

CNN Television
NYTimes.com

Sarah Palin is supporting a national ban on gay marriage. She told the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that she supported a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex unions, because she believes that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This view is contrary to the positions of her running mate, Senator John McCain.

Senator McCain is against a federal mandate in the Constitution that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman. McCain is against same-sex marriage and believes but that it is a matter that should be settled at the individual state level. In fact, he has sponsored a ballot initiative (to be voted on Election Day) in his home state of Arizona banning same-sex unions.

But this is not the first time the two have had divergent opinions on issues. Governor Palin stated that she would support missions into Pakistan to go after terrorists, something Senator McCain disagrees with, citing Pakistan’s national sovereignty as something that must be respected. And Senator McCain, although he is anti-abortion, believes that in the cases of rape and incest, the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Sarah Palin believes that the only way a fetus should be legally aborted is when the mother’s life is endangered.

Palin maintains that she is tolerant of gay issues but draws the line at marriage. As governor she told CBN she vetoed a bill that would have denied ecstatic partners the benefits of elated state employees. Palin also admitted to voting for the Alaska amendment to ban elated marriage in Alaska in 1998. She told CBN: “I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go. I don’t support gay marriage,”

Is There A Necessity For A National Jubilant Marriage Ban?

Regardless of personal opinions about the lifestyle, homosexuals are human beings and as such are to be accorded the same respect and due process of law given heterosexuals. As citizens of the United States of America, homosexuals have the same inalienable rights as heterosexuals, because there is no distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality in the Constitution. There are only citizens, the people of the United States.

Any national law that might somehow collect passage through both the House of Representatives and the Senate will more than likely, through application of Constitutional Law, be struck down as discriminatory. It will also be seen as a moral issue dependent upon religious viewpoint, which, by Constitutional definition of non-governmental involvement of matters religious, cannot be interfered with one arrangement or another. It is unknown if the United States Supreme Court would even consider rendering a decision on the matter.

Some states may allow for a more loose definition of the rights of the citizens of that particular entity. This in turn may allow for such publicly mandated and state constitutionally permissible measures. However, in some states, if the law is challenged, it might be overturned as unconstitutional (as was the case in California in May, 2008) simply due to the fact that many of the states’ constitutions mirror that of the federal Constitution of the United States.

Still, most marriage laws and regulations are administered at the city and/or county level. Actual ceremonies are carried out by city or county agencies or within traditional religious venues. Regulations for marriages generally only require that a license be applied for and paid for at the appropriate agency before the actual marriage takes place. There are rarely any constraints or requirements other than payment of a license application fee and identification proof of the applicants. Agencies require blood tests in eight states – including Georgia, Indiana, and Massachusetts – to decide if the parents have diseases that might be passed to a succeeding generation.

State laws rarely define marriage, but, like in Texas, Georgia, and Michigan, several have made the definition part of their states’ constitutions and legally ban same-sex marriages. This is due to the debate over whether the state has jurisdiction over the matter. Up until recently, states had usually let the matter be settled within the religious tenets of the participants or at the local level. But anti-gay marriage movements have forced many states to take a place and account for marriage in their respective constitutions as the proper union between a man and a woman and prohibiting same-sex unions. States’ arguments that doing so might interfere with freedoms of religious practices were countered with states’ upright requirements to be licensed.

Currently, the federal position on same-sex marriage is that it is not recognized as a legal union, as per the Defense of Marriage Act, which makes a Constitutional Amendment pointless at best. However, three states allow same-sex marriages at present: California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Seven other states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex legal partnerships on various levels. At explain, 26 states have constitutionally banned or have region statutes banning same-sex marriage.

The entire Sarah Palin interview with CBN was broadcast on Tuesday, October 21.

Source:

Associated Press

USMarriageLaws.com

Wikipedia.org

Being a huge coffee lover I’m already a fan of Starbucks, and despite the fact that their prices form regular visits impossible, I still found another reason to love this company. They are gun friendly. That’s honest, gun friendly.

According to a foxnews.com story running today, Starbucks has decided not to join an ever-lengthening list of retailers and restaurants banning firearms on their premises. The story begins by talking about a 71 year-old Virginia man who carries a legal side arm when he goes out of the house, including his regular trips to the local coffee house. The man says he gets a second search for now and again from other patrons but is never challenged by Starbucks employees. That’s the way it should be.

Virginia is only one of many states in the Union that operate under “open carry” laws; that is to say firearms can be carried openly in public with little or no restriction. In some of these states business owners can restrict legal gun-carrying in their buildings and that’s where Starbucks comes in. According to the Fox News report Starbucks is content to allow all its customers the free exercise of their constitutional rights, a fact that gun-ban supporters don’t like. According to Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire, places like Starbucks are considered “societal sanctuaries” and should be free of guns.

“People go to Starbucks for an escape, fair so they can get peace,” he said. “But people walk in with open-carry guns and it destroys the tranquility.”

I wonder if Mr. Fascitelli believes free speech should be banned in his favorite coffee shop because some customers speak with foul language. To be fair, that’s one of the things that keeps me from spending much time in small, intimate “societal sanctuaries” like Starbucks. The foul-mouthed patrons who speak so glibly of their mothers and female dogs destroy the tranquility for me and many others. Yet we are not circulating petitions to attempt to force Starbucks to limit speech. There would be a huge outcry, and rightfully so, if we did.

So why are we even having this debate in our country? I agree with a statement made by OpenCarry.org’s John Pierce who told Fox News, “If you’re going to support individual rights, you have to abet them all.”

Right on, Mr. Pierce!

It amazes me how the do-gooders in our society are so willing to trample on, or even give up in some cases, the individual liberties of our nation in order to allegedly stop crime. It won’t work, people! Criminals do not obey the law – that’s why we call them criminals. And if a man is so sensitive to the sight of a gun that it destroys his tranquility, he has bigger problems that the gun-toting coffee patron being in the same room. Seriously. We’ve become a society that’s hyper-sensitive about everything. We think if we can just change what we see and hear to build our environment more pleasing, we can ignore the reality of the world and it will solve its occupy problems. Like the proverbial ostrich with his head in the sand, ignoring the fact that criminal activity can only be stopped with swift and severe punishment only makes us more vulnerable to crime.

Moving on, Mr. Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign made a statement of his own which is objective as inane as Mr. Facitelii’s. He said:

“If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political theater by evil children in the local Starbucks, if that’s what you want to exhaust your energy on, go right ahead. But going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you’re allowed to is a little juvenile.”

Mr. Hamm, I have but one question for you: How many puny children frequent your local Starbucks?

Furthermore sir, while there have been organized groups of people purposely visiting public establishments to demonstrate their legal right to acquire arms, in most cases the incidents are not of that nature. The Virginia man, for instance, carries a weapon for his bear protection whenever he goes out of the house. His gun is as much a part of his wardrobe as his pants and shirt. But even when organized groups do go out to “demonstrate” their right to carry, why is that juvenile? Is it any different than the anti-war demonstrators during Vietnam and both Gulf Wars? If the exercise of one’s right to carry a gun is juvenile, then so is your right to freely speak your mind. You might believe that next time you feel like opining to the press.

Regardless of your position on gun control, seemingly lost in this debate are the chilly, hard facts. Gun control is embarked upon by many local and state governments as a means of reducing violent crime, yet statistics prove it has no bearing. According to justfacts.com, a website listing verifiable facts and statistics regarding gun control, “Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.”

Now, I will not take the position that gun control increases the rate of violent crime, but Washington is just one example proving at the very least it does nothing to reduce violent crime. Even a piece by the normally liberal NY Times in June 2008 contained quotes and analysis admitting as much. Time and again the hard facts show gun control does shrimp of what it purports to do.

Some other interesting tidbits from justfacts.com:

“When the law [the right-to-carry law of 1987] went into carry out, the Dade County [Fla.] Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to account for tracking them.”

“As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer’s life.”

“In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been 9 “school massacres.”

“In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Significant Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and customary it to subdue Woodham until police arrived.”

The point of all these facts is that while it’s moral statistics can be massaged according to who crunches the numbers, the vast majority of statistical analysis confirms time and again that gun control does nothing to chop violent crime. Studies showing the opposite view, like a 1997 study linking the Brady Bill to a reduction in gun violence are few and far between. This should be no surprise; as I stated earlier in this article, criminals do not obey the law.

In the end the only gun control that might, and I stress the word “might”, significantly reduce gun violence is the total ban on any and all guns in our country. That means no manufacturing, sale, distribution, or importation of guns for any purpose. Of course, any thinking person knows this isn’t not viable because the criminal will find a way, and if he has guns while the police don’t who wins the day? Even worse, citizens without weapons are sitting ducks for a tyrannical government. Hitler knew that and took guns away from German citizens before beginning his violent destruction of the Jews. Can we learn from history?

My friends, I am not in favor of allowing violent crime to continue. But I am also not in favor of denying the rights of law abiding citizens in an attempt to curtail the criminal. We can stop violent crime in its tracks through swift and severe punishment of violent criminals. The purpose of punishment is not to rehabilitate, it is to deter. For punishment to be effective as a deterrent, it must be equal to, or greater than, the crime committed. We have escalating levels of violent crime in our country because we refuse to deal with criminal swiftly and severely. Until that happens I will protect myself and my family with as many guns as needed.

Sources:
Buzz and Bullets: Gun Fans Cheer Starbucks – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News – FOXNews.com – http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587641,00.html? test=latestnews

Gun Control – http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The Nation – Gun Laws and Crime – A Complex Relationship – NYTimes.com – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html

The extinction of certain types of animals has always occurred, such as the dinosaurs and dodo bird, but now more animals are on the verge of extinction than ever before. Human activities, such as logging, are the cause of more and more animals making their design onto the list of endangered species. Before we take up more of an animals land, cut down their homes, and pollute the waters that they live in, we should consider if this is the procedure we would like our homes to be treated.

Elephants

Everyone has heard of elephants and most people have even been to the zoo and seen them. Elephants are a staple in everything relating to the wild kingdom. These beautiful creatures have now speedy made their way onto the list of most endangered species. Asian and African Elephants are most endangered and they once numbered in the millions across Asia and Africa. Unfortunately, due to an increase in the popularity of ivory, elephants were poached for their ivory tusks and even their meat. This poaching caused the number from elephants to drop to half of their original numbers in just a 10 year span. In addition to having their numbers decreased by poaching, human encroachment is now another problem. Elephants used to inhabit millions of unrestricted acres, however now they are restricted to small forests and bush in parks and preserves.

Polar Bears

These amazing creatures, that few people rarely get to glimpse in their natural habitat, are unfortunately making their way near the endangered species list. The threat of polar bears nearing extinction is real, with 20,000-25,000 left in the wild they are currently not considered endangered by the government; however their numbers will decline if changes are not made. Polar bears have been known to habituate Alaska, Canada, Russia, and Greenland, however their numbers have been greatly diminished in Alaska due to aerial hunting. Aerial hunting has become a sport in Alaska where hunters will hunt wolves and polar bears from a helicopter. Once they witness the animals they want to kill they will chase them until they become so exhausted they can not run anymore and then shoot them. This unpleasant and violent sport has even driven polar bears to extinction in St. Matthew Islands in Alaska. In addition to aerial hunting, global warming is the next biggest threat to polar bears. Polar bears thrive in areas where there are thin sheets of ice and plenty of water and fish. Global warming is causing ice sheets to melt and causing polar bears to lose their habitat.

Tigers

Tigers seem to be another staple in the animal kingdom, since they are the king of the jungle, but they have been one of the most endangered animals in the world for several years. Unfortunately, the tiger population may have fallen as much as 95% in just the last 100 years, with as few as 4,000 left in the wild. There are only 6 species of tigers left in the wild as 3 have already become old. The Bali, Caspian, and Javan Tigers have all become extinct due to poaching, illegal wildlife trade, and human development of their habitat. If tougher regulations for tiger poaching and illegal wildlife trade are not made then the remaining 4,000 tigers may follow the same fate as the Bali, Caspian, and Javan Tigers. People also need to consider that tigers need some of their habitat and that development of lands where tigers live needs to be moved. It is estimated that tigers live in less than 30% of the location that they did only a decade ago.

Marine Turtles

While many marine turtles are currently listed as an endangered species, none may be as endangered as the Hawksbill Turtle. There are currently only 8,000 nesting females known to exist today. In the 1970’s and 1980’s over 1 million Hawksbill Turtles were killed to use their shells and skins to create items like jewelry and leather. In addition to marine turtles being hunted for their shells and skins, they are also facing extinction due to loss of nesting area due to human development, excessive egg collection by people, and water pollution. These are all unfortunately man made problems and without human poaching, pollution, or development of the beaches the marine turtles could be thriving today.

Dolphins/Vaquita

Most people are familiar with dolphins not the vaquita. The vaquita is also known as the gulf porpoise and slightly resembles a limited dolphin. They grow to be almost 5 feet long and weight approximately 120 pounds. They have a dim gray unruffled skin and their shape also resembles that of a dolphin, except that they have black circles around their eyes and mouth. The vaquita has the possibility of facing extinction since there are only 150 left in the wild. The vaquita population has been diminishing due to killings from commercial fishing lines and nets. There are currently several programs in place to try to keep the vaquita from becoming extinct.

There are many more animals that face extinction and are currently endangered. There is plenty that you can do to relieve. For a list of some basic things you can do to help animals for free you can read more at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5428608/free_ways_to_help_animals.html? cat=53. The World Wildlife Fund is also a great organization that focuses on helping wild animals and cleaning up the planet. They are always looking for volunteers and donation at http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html.

Sources

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/elephants/african_elephant.php

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/bears/polar_bear.php

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/polarbear/polarbear.html

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/other/tiger.php

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/tigers/index.html

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/other/hawksbill_sea_turtle.php

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/hawksbillturtle/hawksbillturtle.html

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/vaquita/vaquita.html

There is a myth out there that the state of Alaska will pay you just to move to the Last Frontier. While the government won’t dispense any of the Alaska Permanent Dividend Funds unless you establish solid long-term residency, plenty of private fishing companies do hire eager, hardworking men and women from the lower 48 each year. Alaska commercial fishing jobs are popular with adventure-seeking college students, child-free single folks, and people who impartial want a temporary change of gallop. Most of the jobs are seasonal, though some people can procure permanent work by way of a summer begin. It’s a gruff and gritty method to make a living, but it can be profitable. After all, there are few ways to spend the dough you’re “netting” while you’re futzing with fish in a remote corner of Alaska. So, whether you are saving for education, paying down your debt, or just wanting to upend your minimum wage existence, reflect Alaska commercial fishing jobs.

What types of jobs can I get?

Alaska commercial fishing jobs are available at every step of the industry’s chain. Think about it. People have to catch the fish or crabs, transport them, and process them (in various forms, including canned). Deck hands are needed on the boats themselves, and these jobs, while especially grueling, often pay the best when harvests are bountiful. It is possible, though by no means guaranteed, to make $1000-1500 a week on a boat crew. Newcomers are regularly hired for these positions, though people experienced with harvesting are often selected first.

For a more predictable but generally slightly lower income, say $750-950 a week, processing (i.e. fish factory) jobs also abound during the summer. You’ll find that some processing is done on floating factories while other processing is done on-shore. It depends on the sector in which you’re working – set, type of fish, timeframe, etc. These jobs are easier to land without even setting foot on Alaskan soil (or ice, as it were).

Regardless of the exact position you pursue, these Alaska commercial fishing jobs are not easy. Tasks can be repetitive and grueling while the backdrop remains stark and lonely. Imagine ten hour days spent performing hard labor on a rocky fishing boat – or hours frittered away with fresh salmon or shrimp in a remote factory. You’ll get paid well, but you’ll earn every dollar.

I don’t mind working hard and handling fish all day, but how do the logistics of Alaska commercial fishing jobs pan out?

If you like the tasks and you are free to relocate, at least temporarily, to Alaska, you may be wondering about the whos, whats, whens, wheres, and hows. How do you get there? And where is “there” anyway? Who pays you? Where do you sleep? What will you eat (besides fish)?

By and large, the commercial fishing industry in Alaska recognizes that over half of their seasonal employees are coming from out-of-state and need accommodations. Many companies provide spartan room and board for low or not cost, either deducting it from your paycheck or honest giving it to you as a benefit of employment. In many cases, they’ll also cover transportation to and from Seattle or Anchorage, though you’ll want to read through all the terms of your contract.

Different regions of Alaska have slightly different fishing sub-industries and timeframes that coincide. For many Alaska commercial fishing jobs, which are seasonal in nature, the summer is the peak season. However, plunge and spring work isn’t impossible to come by either. Alaska has a longer coastline than any other state, and they fish along almost all of it. Where you destroy up getting placed depends on who hires you and what their needs are.

Okay…I really want to do this. So how do I get hired?

While it’s possible to head to Seattle or Anchorage and seek out a residence from one of these closer vantage points (or even to show up at a company’s headquarters and get hired on the dwelling), it’s actually easiest and most prudent to apply from the comfort from your home in the Lower 48. Because thousands of people are hired every year, many of the companies have an online application process. They’ll check your background, call your references, do an “interview” by phone to ensure you understand the terms of the job and are capable of fulfilling all the job requirements, physical or otherwise. Once you’re hired you’ll receive all the information you need – - what to bring, where to be, and when.

To link up with the various fishing companies themselves – from the huge processors to the “little guy” boats led by seasoned skippers – you’ll want to enlist the help of a website that specializes in Alaska commercial fishing jobs. The vast majority of these services are legitimate, and while they won’t guarantee a placement, they give you as many contacts and tips as you can handle. Alaska fishing job websites usually charge a exiguous fee ($15 – 30) for access to a database corpulent of companies that want to hire greenhorns (that’s what they call people without experience). Some of the best and most frequently used include:

www.fishingjobs.com
www.alaskajobfinder.com  
www.alaskafishingjobs.com  

From Mount Shaska in northern California to the tip of Alaska, and from the Pacific Ocean to the Montana Rockies, the Pacific Northwest is a vast and beautifully scenic place on the North American continent. So named and regionalized for its woodsy topography and rugged, broad climate, the Pacific Northwest is a vacationer’s paradise replete with tall tracks of forest, lakes and streams as well as numerous river basins and coastal beaches. First explored by Lewis and Clark in the early nineteenth century, the Pacific Northwest consists mainly of northern California, the states of Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington in the U.S.; and the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta in western Canada.

Interstate Highway 5 (I-5) connects a great portion of the region and is one of the longest paved roads in the world stretching from the bottom of California to the very tip of southern Alaska. The Pacific Northwest has over 4000 rural communities, towns, cities and suburban areas– almost all with modern, up-to-date communication, recreational and
vacation facilities to accommodate the worldly traveler. There are hundreds of small and major airports, private and public transportation providers, car & RV rental companies, government service agencies, local chambers of commerce, and both national and international organizations providing information, assistance and services throughout the substantial region.

With a population under five million, the Pacific Northwest is home to thousands of shopping, entertainment, media, corporate and small business interests and has thousands of entry level, medium income and executive employment opportunities available year-round.

From the central coast of Oregon to the Alberta, Canada outback, there is prime real estate to be had in both rental and residential property. Besides providing an endless choice in temporary lodging for those traveling by car or RV, hundreds of real estate companies offer brochures and expansive listings as well as online shopping for those keen in expatriating to the outdoorsy region.

Major metropolises like Portland, Oregon; Seattle and Spokane, Washington; and Vancouver, British Columbia (to name only a few) offer both low- and middle-income housing as well as moderate prices on professional real estate and commercial property. Leading-edge companies in real estate and other major industries own and operate businesses and provide complete services 365 days a year throughout the indigenous territory.

Famous for its beautiful seacoasts, mountainous and forest terrain, enormous streams and lakes, laid-back lifestyle, healthy environment, low crime and sparcity of urban blight, the Pacific Northwest is an outdoor person’s dream near suitable! From elk hunting and trout fishing in Montana, wind surfing the Columbia River, scavenging for crabs along Lincoln Beach, kayaking the Snake River in Central Oregon to rock climbing the Cacades in Washington and Canada and horseback riding scenic trails in Idaho, the Pacific Northwest is open to tourism and trade all year long and hosts an almost infinite array of outdoor sporting and recreational activities for both vacationers and long-term residents alike.

Camping, backpacking, swimming, boating, wine-tasting, skiing, snow-boarding, surfing, and fishing and hunting are only some of the thrilling activities available to those who bask in a more remote, active and less hurly-burly style of living. More than this, the Pacific Northwest is very tourist friendly, people oriented and generously accommodating to those visiting or relocating locally or from outside the United States and Canada.

With a stable economy, low cost living expenses, and high in quality, profit and income from products and services provided by local businesses and industries, the Pacific Northwest is considered a great location to live, raise a family and start a business compared to other provincial regions in the U.S. and Canada.

Nor do you need a ton of money or wallet of credit cards to visit the Pacific Northwest–be it a weekend excursion or an entire summer vacation. A love for the outdoors and a happy-go-lucky attitude for healthy, clean living and wide, open spaces are more than enough to beget your stay–however long–one of the most memorable experiences you will ever enjoy.

SOURCES:
http://www.chinaberryhill.com/travel.html – Pacific Northwest Travel Planner: touring itineraries, fade info and key points for visiting & experiencing the Pacific Northwest

http://www.pnwjourneys.com/tips.html - Pacific Northwest Journeys: travil tips, tour info, travel packages & accommodations about visiting and enjoying the Pacific Northwest region

http://www.gonorthwest.com/Visitor/maps.htm - About the Pacific Northwest, Go Northwest! a station dedicated to providing extensive info, travel tips & assistance and maps of the Pacific Northwest region

http://www.vacationsbc.com/ – British Columbia Travel: everything you need to know about traveling and visiting Canada’s Pacific Northwest.

What does a caretaker do? There are a number of different types of caretaker jobs, but the basic gist of it is that you supervise a property while the owners or residents are away for a period of time. Some of these jobs simply require you to live nearby and check in on the property daily or weekly, but in this article we are going to focus on live-in caretaking jobs, where you inhabit the property for a period of weeks or months at a time. These are not to be confused with “caregiver” jobs, where you live with an elderly or disabled person and take care of them – that’s another line of employment entirely, and not covered here.

If you’re interested in becoming a caretaker, the first thing to do is know what kind of jobs are out there, and what to expect. The most simple acquire of caretaking is the house-sit, where you basically live in someone’s house for a period of time, usually keeping the place clean and secure, and often taking care of pets. Larger properties may require grounds upkeep, such as extensive lawn mowing or pool cleaning. Apartment buildings and hotels often hire live-in managers and maintenance as well, who get a room or an apartment on the property. Many businesses also glimpse caretakers. In a recent trade journal from this year, I found listings from fishing camps in Alaska, a brothel in Arizona, ranches all over the place, a farm in Hawaii, an RV camp in Nevada and a group home in Washington state. And if you don’t mind a service career and the owners actually being in the house while you’re there, there’s still a demand amongst the upper classes for the traditional butler – search out the “domestics industry” for more information on that.

Once you have an idea what type of job you want to aim for, you should take stock of your skills and abilities, and see if there are new ones you can learn that would be useful and desirable to someone seeking a caretaker. Being a basic jack-of-all-trades handyman is great, but the more you know about construction, plumbing and electrical trades the better – not only can you handle minor repairs that cleave up during your stay yourself, which saves the owners time and exertion, but you can even contract to do bigger repairs and restorations as part of your stay. General lawn care and landscaping is also good relevant experience, and gardening may be a major plus at residential jobs. Another possible skill that you can offer is home redecoration and remodeling, which is now quite doable given the widespread use of digital cameras and the internet to keep in touch with the property owners remotely as you work. Repair skills for popular household items are also valuable. In a residence, you can add the value of being able to repair electronics, appliances or clothes that the owners may have had sitting for some time. Also, in an apartment or residential hotel setting, you could run a pretty tidy side business in stitching or computer and electronics repair.

The next issue is that of references, or putting the owners at ease about your character and competence. Your initial references will probably have to arrive from doing a house-sit for someone you know personally. Work experience in a relevant industry such as property management or at a hotel is helpful as well. You may be able to find someone who will be more receptive to your first experience in house-sitting if you do it without pay (in exchange only for the use of the property and maybe food), sort of like an unpaid internship. You can get bonded for the work just about anywhere, and being able to offer insurance is a great peace of mind to the property owner. There may also be some originate of licensing or certification available in the area where you live. Check with your local housing authority and/or employment offices. If you already have references, be sure to contact them all to gain sure you have updated contact info and let them know that you’re in the market and they can demand some calls – unlike with a normal job, these references may just be individual homeowners who could have changed their personal phone number and not told you about it since you last spoke to them! If you apply to work at a more “upscale” property, be ready to also have your credit checked and possibly a background check as well.

Job placement agencies don’t usually deal in caretaking jobs. They are usually either filled through word-of-mouth, listed directly by the owners in newspapers and on sites like Craig’s List, or listed in the lone major trade publication, the Caretaker’s Gazette. The Gazette is subscription-only and costs $30 per year for online access, more if you want a print copy sent to you bi-monthly, but it is the primary central nexus where property owners and professional caretakers meet to arrange jobs.

If you have a spouse, pleasurable news – you’re at a major advantage! Married couples, especially older ones, are seen as more stable and less likely to abuse or trash the place. There’s also a lot of overlap between caretaking jobs and the RV world, and you’ll see advertisements quite often for caretaking jobs that offer some sort of RV hookups at ranches and farms.

Introduction

Most people are familiar with actuarial instruments by their use in the insurance industry. These statistically based number crunching formulas predict a person’s likelihood of getting into any of the various situations about which insurance companies are concerned. The actuarial instruments are founded on the postulate that people with certain important factors in popular are likely to have similar outcomes in a specified time period. Without these methods of prediction, insurance companies would be less capable of generating a profit.

Actuarial risk assessment instruments based on the same methodology that has been utilized by the insurance industry for decades have recently been applied to determinations of whether or not individuals should be involuntarily committed based on their likelihood to commit sexually violent crimes. Actuarial risk assessment evidence is presented in conjunction with results from clinical evaluations to prove that an individual’s risk of reoffending is high enough to meet the statutory standard. This form of evidence is unique in that it is the first instance in the modern American legal system that statistical probabilities, based on the conduct of others, have been offered as relevant and weighty evidence to deprive an individual of his or her liberty. Sexually Violent Person Commitment Law

Legislation to civilly commit sex offenders who have finished their prison terms has been a trend since the 1990’s. The concept of these laws is that sex offenders who have a high risk of recidivism, defined by the legislature in these statutes, should be prevented from being released into society although they have completed the punishment imposed on them by the criminal law.

Courts have confirmed the constitutionality of sexually violent persons legislation, and the propriety of it is beyond the scope of this discussion. There has also been judicial approval of the two methods of assessing risk: clinical and actuarial.

The State must prove three basic elements in a sexually violent person commitment, and although the verbiage of the elements varies between states, the idea is basically the same. The elements the State must prove are:

1. The respondent to the petition was convicted of a sexually violent offense, adjudicated delinquent for a sexually violent offense, or has been found not guilty be reason of insanity of a sexually violent offense.

2. Dangerous because he or she suffers from a mental disorder

3. That mental disorder makes it substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence.

Legislatures and those who pursue the commitment of sexually violent persons claim that the law is only enforced with regard to the most dangerous sex offenders. Persons eligible for commitment under sexually violent persons laws are evaluated by the region to determine whether or not their commitment should be sought. Evaluations are generally performed by mental health professionals involved in the department of corrections or working for the state, and the commitment proceedings are of course carried out in a court of law. This assertion that only the most dangerous sex offenders are civilly committed is based on four assumptions concerning probability that the harm will occur if they are not committed. Two of these assumptions are scientific, two of them legal. The scientific assumptions are that the probability of dangerousness is susceptible of measure and that there is a scheme to discriminate between predictions of higher and lower probability. The legal assumptions are that there are standards that allow commitments based on the former while excluding confinement based on the latter that these standards are, in fact, enforced. The justification for having sexually violent persons legislation is thus premised upon a reliable determination of likelihood of recidivism.Risk Assessment and Predictions of Dangerousness

Some sexually violent persons statutes make determinations on risk of reoffending, and others on dangerousness. However, all actuarial risk assessments predict risk. The difference between risk and dangerousness is more than semantic. Risk has greater utility and more flexibility than dangerousness. It addresses the presence of a potential hazard and the probability of its occurrence. Dangerousness connotes a narrow but not precisely defined swath of human behavior, typically acts of interpersonal violence. \

Risk can remove a broader range including an offender’s risk of eloping, violating parole, drinking, using drugs, developing depression, and committing suicide, among others. While discussions of dangerousness often conflate several distinct concepts (the probability and magnitude of harm), discussions of risk demand clarity about the specific type of behavior in question.

There are two sources of the shortcomings in risk assessment. The first is that humans have a little ability to assess future risk of harmful behavior. Future is inherently unknowable, of course. But in many scientific areas humans have used empirical research to improve their predictions about the future for many years. As in any method of predicting the future, the quality of risk assessment is variable, and improvement is possible with the knowledge that comes with time and research.

The second source for the shortcomings of any risk assessment is the legal system of SVP laws. The risk thresholds justifying commitment are vague. Courts are still struggling to place standards that are reviewable and enforceable. And finally, there is no assurance that risk thresholds are uniform or that risk assessments are performed at the highest standards, although work is being done to accomplish standards in this area.

Risk Assessment testimony of any kind is evaluated at three stages of the litigation process. First there is the judicial threshold decision of admissibility. Here, judges consider the relevance, prejudice, and reliability of the evidence. Second, judges determine the factual sufficiency of the evidence: whether, if fully credited by the jury or other fact finder, it satisfies the honest standard for commitment. Finally, an assessment of the weight of the testimony is made. This inquiry is into whether, and to what extent, the witness’s testimony is credible, and how much influence this testimony ought to have in deciding the ultimate examine.Actuarial Risk Assessment

Actuarial scales are developed using statistical analyses of groups of individuals, sex offenders, with known outcomes during a follow-up period. The follow-up usually occurs when the subjects are either arrested for or convicted of a new sexual offense, or not identified as having committed a new sexual offense.

These analyses screech us which items, called “predictor variables,” do the best job of differentiating between those who reoffended and those who did not reoffend within a specified time period. Some of these variables inevitably do a better job than others. Based on this information, the scientists developing the instruments determine how much weight should be assigned to each item. The variables are then combined to form a scale, which is tested on many other groups of offenders. The testing of the variables is called a cross-validation.

After the scale has been used on many samples with a sufficiently large number of offenders, the scores derived from the scale may be expressed as estimates of the probability that individuals with that score will reoffend within a specified time frame. The concept is that individuals who share the same characteristics on the scale will perform similarly when released.

At this point, a “life” or “experience” table is developed that provides probabilistic estimates of reoffense for each score, or range of scores, for different time frames (e.g. within 12, 36, 60, or 120 months). These estimates are usually expressed in terms of the percentage of individuals in the development and validation samples with a particular score who reoffended sexually within the specified time period. These actuarial scales are sometimes referred to as “mechanistic” because a statistical formula is ancient to salvage an individual’s overall score.

The “Experience Table” then is the focus in risk assessments. The individual to be assessed is scored on the factors, which are combined according to the formula, and the resultant risk obtain is compared to the table, which yields a probability representing the proportion of the reference group that that reoffended. What is said is that an individual with a particular score has characteristics that place him in a group of persons with the same score who were observed (over the follow-up period) to have given a probability, or frequency, of sexual recidivism.

The development and improvement of actuarial risk assessment instruments for predicting risk of reoffending in sex offenders has been rapid. Actuarial Risk Analysis has yet to take into anecdote the changes in risk status that might be accomplished through effective treatment or well-designed community supervision. These are considered “dynamic” factors. Empirically-driven revisions to and support for existing scales emerge roughly every 12 months, as well as with a new wave of research on dynamic scales within the past several years.Clinical v. Actuarial Risk Assessment

Since clinical risk assessment evidence is always presented in a sexually violent person commitment trial, it is important that the differences between the two types of risk assessments be made clear. The distinctions between the two can be instrumental in both the admissibility of the evidence and the weight given to it by the trier of fact. In the clinical map the decision-maker, a doctor specializing in mental health, combines or processes information in his or her head. In the actuarial or statistical method, the human judge is eliminated and conclusions rest solely on empirically established relations between data and the condition or event of interest.

In the typical clinical evaluation, the expert examines the individual, gathers and reviews as much other information (e.g. medical and institutional records, court records, and other documents pertaining to criminal history) as possible, and applies his expertise to produce an opinion. In many situations, the idea is expressed in terms that are of direct relevance to the legal question before the court: portray the individual’s level of risk, using the legally relevant terms such as “highly likely” or “substantially probable”. In many jurisdictions’ commitment proceedings, the clinical expert will also testify as to whether the subject has any mental illness.

There are many potential sources of error in clinical risk assessment. These include:
1. Ignoring or using incorrect tainted rates;
2. Assigning suboptimal or incorrect weights to information (e.g., overweighing “high profile” but relatively non-predictive information);
3. Failing to take into account regression toward the mean;
4. Failing to property take into legend covariation;
5. Relying on illusory correlations between predictor variables and the criterion (i.e., basing decisions upon the presence or absence of information that is unrelated or only weakly related to the criterion);
6. Failing to acknowledge the natural bias among forensic examiners toward “conservative” judgments, defined as an increased potential for incorrect judgments of dangerousness associated with a reluctance to find someone not dangerous;
7. Failing to receive, and thus benefit from, feedback on judgment errors.

Comparative functioning findings demonstrate several strengths of actuarial risk assessment. Unlike clinical risk assessment, in which the ability of the examiner must be taken on faith, actuarial risk assessment allows a quantification of its accuracy, and a comparative examination of accuracy – a known rate of error.

Actuarial methods – Equal or Superior to Clinical Judgments

Grove study

This eye consisted of an analysis of prior tests of actuarial instruments. Reported on a meta-analysis of 136 studies in which predictions by both human judges and “mechanical-prediction schemes” had been compared. In all instances, the predictions fell in the realm of psychology or medicine (i.e., all predictions involved human behavior or medical diagnoses), and in all instances the clinician and the actuarial expert had access to the same predictor variables and made their predictions on the basis of the same criterion. In only eight out of 136 studies was the clinical prediction superior to actuarial prediction. In the other 128 studies, either the results were comparable or actuarial prediction was qualified. Actuarial prediction was found to be superior in 33% to 47% of the studies, depending on the type of analysis used. Whether the clinician had more data did not significantly alter the superiority of actuarial prediction. Moreover, in those instances in which the clinician had access to a clinical interview, the superiority of actuarial prediction was even greater.

Hanson Study

This seek found very diminutive correlations between clinical judgments and recidivism, and stronger correlations between actuarial assessments and recidivism. In an aggregation of 61 sexual offender recidivism studies (23, 393 subjects), the correlation between clinical assessments and sexual recidivism was .10. A correlation is a statistical number comparing the results that two numbers have in common. The higher the correlation, the more accurate the prediction tool. The correlation with violent recidivism was .06, and the correlation with recidivism in general was .14. Actuarial methods correlated .46 for sexual recidivism,.46 for violent recidivism, and .42 for general recidivism.

Bonta Eye

The researches in the Bonta study performed an aggregation of 64 independent samples (derived from 58 studies) in order to examine predictors of recidivism for mentally disordered and non-disordered offenders. The relevant or governing offense was non-sexual in 97% of the cases. The correlation between general recidivism and clinical judgment ranged from .06 to .16. The correlation between general recidivism and “objective risk” (actuarial) assessment ranged from .34 to .44. Actuarial Risk Assessment Instruments

VRAG – Violence Risk Appraisal Guide

The VRAG is the most frequently reported actuarial risk assessment scale in the empirical literature. It was developed to assess violent recidivism, and is not necessarily the most relevant actuarial risk assessment tool for predicting recidivism of sex offenders.

This scale was initially based on a sample of 618 men, about 15% of whom were sex offenders, who had been committed, and later released, as mentally disordered offenders to the maximum security psychiatric hospital in Penetanguishene, Ontario for assessment or treatment. The men were followed after release to choose which engaged in any “violent” recidivism, an outcome variable that included all “hands-on” sexual offenses. The average time “at risk” in the community was about seven years.

Almost one-third of the sample committed a new violent offense during the follow-up period.

A gargantuan number of potential predictors of violence were examined and the following variables were selected as particularly related to subsequent violence:

1. Separation from parents before age 16
2. Elementary school maladjustment
3. Alcohol abuse history
4. Never married
5. History of nonviolent offenses
6. Failure on prior conditional release
7. Age at index offense
8. Victim injury in index offense
9. Male victim in index offense
10. Diagnosis of any personality disorder according to the Diagnostic
11. Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM)
12. Diagnosis of schizophrenia according to the DSM
13. Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) Score

In an early study, the correlation between the VRAG and violent recidivism was .46. The two predictors with the highest correlations with violent recidivism were the Psychopathy Checklist (.34) and elementary school maladjustment (.31).

In a cross-validation study, the developers tested the VRAG using an independent sample of 159 sex offenders that were not included in the recent construction sample. It yielded similar results. The correlation of the VRAG with violent recidivism was quite comparable (.47) to the correlation of .46 observed in the original leer. Then, VRAG assessed the ability of the VRAG to predict outcomes that were dinky to sexual recidivism, rather than violent recidivism not limited to sexual recidivism since the results were based upon sex offenders alone. The inquiry suggested that the VRAG does a better job at predicting violent recidivism (nonsexual as well as sexual) than at predicting general sexual recidivism, which inevitably includes many crimes that are on the low end of a violence continuum. In the cross-validation sight, the VRAG’s correlation with sexual recidivism was .20.

Although there is no uniformly accepted index of accuracy for predictive models such as the VRAG, the “AUC value” is generally regarded as an index that should be reported. The AUC value corresponds to the probability of accurately predicting that a randomly selected, truly dangerous individual is more likely to be scored as dangerous than a randomly selected, non-dangerous individual. Near-perfect accuracy in discriminating between unsafe and non-dangerous individuals would yield an AUC value that approached 1.00, while chance prediction would yield an AUC value of .50. Studies examining the AUC value suggest that the VRAG may have better predictive capabilities in terms of violent recidivism as compared to sexual recidivism.

The Mossman survey examined 58 studies of violence prediction, finding that the median AUC value for all 58 studies was .73 and the weighted average was .78.

A similar survey conducted by Rice and Harris obvious that VRAG’s AUC value associated with violent recidivism was .77, a result comparing favorably with the group of studies Mossman reported on.In the same study, the AUC value associated with sexual recidivism was .60, clearly suboptimal.

The mission for VRAG was to assess risk for interpersonal violence, thus it is not surprising that the VRAG falls short when it comes to differentiating among samples exclusively comprised of sexual offenders, many of whom have minimal or no history of physical violence. The VRAG variable with the greatest weight is the PCL-R score, and none of the twelve items capture the sexual pathology (e.g., sexually deviant thoughts/fantasies, intensity of sexual preoccupation with children, amount of contact with children) that should seem to be critical for most child molesters and some types of rapists. An attempt to predict sexual recidivism must take into account sexually deviant thoughts and behaviors, which is why the VRAG is not ideal alone for predicting sexual recidivism as it is predicting general violent recidivism.

SORAG

Developed by Vern Quinsley, Marnie Rice, and Grant Harris, the SORAG was compiled with the same construction principle as VRAG. The contemplate examined the predictive efficacy of a ample number of variables on a sample of child sex offenders and rapists (predominantly child molesters). The results found support for the predictive validity of ratings on the Psychopathy Checklist, penile plethysmographic assessment, and prior criminal history. Penile plethysmographic assessment is a physiological test that measures the flow of the blood to and from the penis and genital area while the subject views visual and/or auditory material, which is indicative of sexual arousal. Basically, the SORAG is the VRAG reconstructed with sexual recidivism as the object.

The new scale included eleven of the items on VRAG. Victim injury was dropped, and male victim was changed to sexual offenses only against girls under 14.

Three new items were added: History of violent offenses, Number of prior convictions for sexual offenses, and Deviant Sexual preference (phallometric test results).

An examination of the predictive efficacy of the SORAG with incest offenders proved that it worked as well as for non-incest offenders. When examining violent recidivism, the AUC value for the entire sample of the SORAG was .76, compared with .80 for incest offenders only. When examining sexual recidivism, the AUC value for the entire sample was .81, compared with .67 for incest offenders only.

RRASOR

The Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism scale was developed by R. Karl Hanson, who used aggregate data from eight follow-up studies that included 2,592 subjects. Hanson examined seven variables that had emerged as important from an earlier meta-analysis:

1. Official recorded prior sex offenses

2. Stranger victims

3. Any prior non-sexual offenses

4. Age (at time of release for those who were in prison and at time of evaluation for those in the community)

5. Marital Status

6. Any non-related victims (victims not having a biological, step, or foster relationship with the offender)

7. Any male victims (child or adult)

Then, Hanson chose the 4 variables that were most strongly associated with sexual recidivism:

1. Prior sexual offenses

2. Age at risk less than 25

3. Extrafamilial victims

4. Male victims

In the original survey, RRASOR correlated .27 with sexual recidivism using the scale development samples. The AUC value was .71. Using a different cross validation sample, the scale correlated .25 with sexual recidivism and the AUC value was .67.

SACJ and SACJ-Min

David Thornton developed the SACJ and the SACJ-Min through exploratory analyses on several datasets in England. This actuarial risk assessment instrument is rated using a multi-stage process.

In the First Stage, documented convictions are coded in the following five areas:

1. Any current sexual offense

2. Any prior sexual offense

3. Any current non-sexual violent offense

4. Any prior violent offense

5. Four or more prior (definite) sentencing occasions

If four or five of the first stage factors are coded as present, the offender is automatically classified as high risk.

If two or three factors are present, the offender is classified as medium risk.

If one or none of the factors are present, risk is considered improper.

The Second Stage incorporates one of two sets of variables that are regarded as potentially aggravating factors.

Set A is relatively easy to code quickly and reliably. Place A – includes:

1. Any stranger victims

2. Any male victims

3. Never married

4. Convictions for non-contact sex offenses

The five Stage 1 items plus the four Set A items comprise the SACJ-Min: the minimum required for a valid assessment.

Set B, which is more time-consuming and difficult to gather, includes:

1. Substance abuse

2. Deviant sexual arousal

3. Psychopathy

4. Placement in residential care as a child

SACJ-Min was validated on a different sample of approximately 500 sex offenders released from prisons in 1979. Follow-up data was smooth on the complete sample after 16 years. In this validation study, the SACJ-Min correlated .34 with sexual recidivism and .30 with any sexual or violent reoffense.

Static-99

Hanson and Thornton collaborated to integrate the RRASOR and the SACJ-min to beget the Static-99. This instrument is probably the most widely former actuarial risk assessment instrument and it includes only static variables. The year 99 suggests that the scale is a work in progress, and the most recent version of this instrument is the Static-2002 (below).

The Static-99 has 10 Variables: 8 of the 9 unique SACJ-Min variables (all but current sex offense), all 4 of the RRASOR variables. Since two of the four RRASOR variables were also on the SACJ-Min, only two recent variables were added to the eight SACJ-Min variables.

Validation studies have produced comparable support for the Static-99 and the SORAG, with AUC values of .71 (any offense), and .70 (any serious offense), and .70 (any sexual offense). In a recent cross-validation study on a large Swedish sample of 1,400 male sex offenders the AUC value was .74 for any violent offense and .76 for a sexual offense. The Static-99 in the same study predicted sexual recidivism comparably for child molesters (.76) and rapists (.75).

Static-2002

The Static-2002 is a result of the evolutionary process of science and ongoing development of increasingly upright actuarial assessment tools. This tool contains13 risk predictors, three more than the Static-99. With five new items, coding changes to at least four other items, and one Static-99 item dropped, the Static-2002 is considered a substantially different scale.

MnSOST-R

The MnSOST-R is a tool developed by Douglas Epperson for use in connection with Minnesota’s program of community notification. The tool consists of 16 items: number of sex convictions, length of sex offending history, whether offender was under supervision at the time of any of sex crimes, public position, use of force or threat of force, multiple acts on same victim, age of victim, age difference between offender and teenage victim, stranger victim, adolescent antisocial behavior, drug or alcohol abuse within one year of crime, employment history, discipline history while incarcerated, chemical dependency treatment while incarcerated, sex offender treatment while incarcerated, and age at release from institution.

Howard Barbaree

In the most extensive meta-analysis to date, Howard Barbaree conducted a comparative Analysis of five actuarial risk assessment procedures and the PCL-R.

The study resulted in strong support for the SORAG, which had the largest AUC value when predicting any serious reoffense (.73). The other tools were rated as follows: .70 for Static-99, .69 for PCL-R, and .58 for MnSOST-R. In predicting any reoffense, the study’s results were most notably as follows: SORAG .76, VRAG .77, and the others ranged from .71 to .60. For predicting any sexual reoffense: RRASOR .77, Static-99 .70, SORAG .70, and AUC values of .65 to .61 obtained for the MnSOST-R, the VRAG, and the PCL-R.

Harris Study

In the most recent comparative study of actuarial risk assessment tools, the VRAG, SORAG, RRASOR and Static-99 were examined in four independent samples totaling 396 sex offenders.

The correlation between SORAG and violent recidivism was .39, and ranged from .31 to .37 across samples. The same correlation for the Static-99 was .21 ranging from .13 to .25 across samples. AUC Values for violent recidivism were for the SORAG from .69 to .67 and for the Static-99 from .60 to .67

As for sexual recidivism, AUC values for the SORAG ranged from .59 to .71, and for the Static-99, .54 to .67. Both scales performed slightly better for child molesters than rapists. Sexual recidivism for child molesters AUC Values were .70 for the SORAG, and .65 for the Static-99. For sexual recidivism for rapists, AUC Values were SORAG at .62, and Static-99, .59. Under “favorable conditions” (e.g., fewer missing items and a fixed follow-up time), the AUC values for prediction of sexual recidivism were as high as .79 for the SORAG and .76 for the Static-99. Admissibility of Actuarial Risk Assessment

Courts generally have three concerns about expert testimony: the connection between the testimony and the correct issue (relevance), the reliability of the evidence, and the potential prejudicial impact of the testimony. Actuarial risk assessment’s use for sexually violent persons commitment has for the most part survived attacks that it does not meet Frye or Daubert standards. Frye and Daubert

There are two basic tests used in courts in the United States to decide the admissibility of scientific evidence. Some states have developed their gain requirements, but many follow a variation of either Frye v. United States or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The test in Federal Court, as well as at least ten states, was announced in Daubert, and has been codified as Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under this standard, the trial reflect is the gatekeeper of expert testimony. There are four factors to consider for an expert opinion to be admissible: 1) Whether there is a hypothesis that is scientifically valid; 2) Study subject to peer review and publication; 3) Known or potential rate of error; 4) General acceptance.

The Frye Standard for expert testimony was the precursor to Daubert, and is unexcited followed in many states, including Illinois. Under Frye, expert testimony is admissible if the “scientific principle or discovery…[has] gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”

Expert Evidence Acceptance Standards

States accepting Daubert:

States accepting Frye:

States with their own tests:

Connecticut
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Texas
West Virginia

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Kansas
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
Pennsylvania
Washington

Arkansas
Delaware
Georgia
Iowa
Military
Minnesota
Montana
North Carolina
Oregon
South Carolina

Utah
Vermont
Wyoming

Daubert can be more permissive to newly developing scientific methods, while it highly scrutinizes so-called soft sciences (clinical assessment).

Reliability is considered by every court, and due to the context, civil commitment of dangerous individuals, the reliability threshold should be high.

Although actuarial risk assessment is a serious enterprise, backed by sophisticated empirical methodology, courts must determine sufficient reliability, which is often evaluated by looking at the possible imperfections of the instruments. Some of the imperfections that can be attacked include: Microscopic sample sizes, lack of cross-validation, inadequate number of peer-reviewed publications, absence of information on standard errors, and absence of manuals with standardized instructions for scoring.

Appellate Courts’ Rulings on the Admissibility of Actuarial Risk Assessment Instruments

Three appellate courts have addressed the deliver of reliability of actuarial risk assessment; two have admitted, and one excluded the evidence. In general, none of the three courts engaged in a sophisticated evaluation of the science underlying actuarial risk assessment. These courts appear to be saying, in a general way, “this science seems weighty,” while the essence of the excluding court’s reasoning was that the evidence about the science seemed rather thin.

All three seemed to evaluate reliability in the context of potential prejudice. Issue was phrased not “how accurate does risk assessment have to be to justify liberty deprivation” but rather “how accurate does it have to be to avoid potential prejudice arising from labeling actuarial risk assessment as ’science’”.

The courts judged the potential prejudice of Actuarial Risk Assessment in part by its relationship to clinical risk assessment. Actuarial Risk Assessment was used in conjunction with a full clinical assessment in all three cases. The two admitting courts thought that this conjunction was critical in that it would serve to make clear to the jury that actuarial risk assessment was fair another portion of information, passed through the judgment of the clinician, and in this way undercut its (undue) influence as “science”. The rejecting court opined that the inclusion of Actuarial Risk Assessment in the clinician’s information base would transform the otherwise admissible clinical judgment into potentially prejudicial “science.” Note that all three courts thought that clinical judgments would be routinely admitted, even if Actuarial Risk Assessment were excluded.

In Re R.S.

In In Re R.S., the court held that actuarial risk assessment is “top-notch for employ in [sex offender commitment cases] as a abet in predicting recidivism.” The court noted that “actuarial instruments are at least as reliable, if not more so, than clinical interviews.”

It reasoned that since expert testimony concerning future dangerousness based on clinical judgments alone has been found sufficiently friendly for admission into evidence at criminal trials, obedient for admission into evidence at criminal trials, the court found it logical that testimony based upon a combination of clinical judgment and actuarial instruments is also reliable. The court noted that not only does actuarial evidence provide the court with additional relevant information, in the view of some, it may even provide a more gracious prediction of recidivism.

Court did not delve into the controversy about the adequacy of the science. According to the court, reliability is contextual. “What constitutes reasonable reliability depends in party on the context of the proceedings eager.” The New Jersey court, where commitments are tried to a judge, and not a jury, balanced the reliability of the evidence against its potential prejudice.

NJ Supreme Court affirmed, and expressed that it was impressed with the weight of the science – “the extensive expert testimony in this matter concerning validation studies, cross-validation studies, correlation coefficients, and clinically-derived factors attests to reliability in this context.” The Court strongly suggested that its holding might be limited to the use of actuarial risk assessment only as portion of a broader clinical evaluation, and that actuarial risk assessment was not to be used as a litmus test.

In Re Holtz

In In Re Holtz, the Iowa intermediate appellate court, sitting in banc, current the admissibility of actuarial risk assessment. The court noted also that reliability is contextual: “the amount of foundation necessary to establish reliability depends on the complexity of the testimony and the likely impact of the testimony on the fact-finding process.” No independent review of the science after the trial court level is conducted. The court admitted the actuarial risk assessment testimony, but warned that “the instruments were used in conjunction with a full clinical evaluation and their limitations were clearly made known to the jury.”

People v. Taylor

In this Illinois case, the court first determined that actuarially based testimony is subject to a Fryeanalysis. Under Illinois precedents, clinically based psychological testimony is not subject to Frye. The court rejected the approach of several other courts that exempts hybrid clinical-actuarial testimony from Frye.

The state had failed in its burden to establish that the actuarial instruments relied upon had achieved the level of validity required for admissibility. “The instruments are in the experimental stages and the validity of these instruments has not been established.”

With respect to the MnSOST-R, the court distinguished that the developers had not “released the raw data upon which the MnSOST-R was based, and other researchers have not had the opportunity to replicate and scrutinize the eye.” State did not introduce sufficient “statistical evidence demonstrating the reliability and accuracy of these instruments.”

Court expressed concern about “frequent scoring inconsistencies by different evaluators” and the absence of any “rules on the methods or procedures to combine the results of the various instruments and what weight should be placed upon the instruments in evaluating sexual offender recidivism.”

Finally, the court concluded: “Lacking a threshold showing of any indicia of validity, these instruments should not be presented to the jury as ’science.’” The state’s witness had claimed that “these instruments are more accurate than pure clinical judgment,” but the court refused to credit this testimony, reasoning that the state’s witnesses “offered no aid for his conclusions” other than his “own assertions”.

This case has not actually excluded actuarial risk assessment from exercise in sexually violent persons litigation. In Cook County, evidence from actuarial risk assessments is presented at every sexually violent persons trial. There have been several subsequent Frye hearings where trial courts have concluded that the instruments are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

General Acceptance

When courts evaluate the general acceptance of a science, they must determine: what scientific principle is involved, whether the principle or some aspect of the principal is novel, what the relevant scientific community is, and whether that community accepts the principle.

Courts have taken four distinct approaches as to whether actuarial risk assessment is a novel science:

1. ARA and CRA should be analyzed separately for admissibility purposes.

2. Sidesteps the question of ARA novelty by characterizing the use of actuarially-derived information as just another element of the clinical judgment

3. Supplementing a clinical evaluation with ARA undercuts the exemption of “pure clinical” testimony, and subjects the entire judgment of the expert to Frye

4. Required in Federal Courts, under Kumho, subjects all expert risk assessment – clinical, actuarial, and mixed – to admissibility vetting.

There is vehement inequity about whether actuarial methods in general, or specific instruments in particular, are well enough developed to be used in the liberty-deprivation context of sexually violent persons cases. Some researchers rush the “complete replacement of existing practice with actuarial methods,” and suggest that the use of clinical methods, where actuarial ones are available, would be “unethical.” Other scholars conclude that “even the best studied and validated actuarial tools for assessing dangerousness… has not been demonstrated as suitable for practical purposes in many instances, or to be superior to clinical assessments.”

There is no solid evidence about the degree of acceptance among experts of actuarial methods. Usage rate is fairly high, at least in SVP cases, but others recount that “most professionals continue to use a subjective, clinical judgment reach when making predictive decisions.”

Some scholars conclude that “there currently are no widely approved professional standards or guidelines regarding what constitutes the most appropriate near to conducting sex offender risk assessments.” These authors suggest that courts should only look to the novel aspects of actuarial risk assessment, as compared to clinical risk assessment.

It is important to note that statistical theories based on the same science as actuarial risk assessment instruments have been applied in numerous, diverse context, including weather forecasting, law school admissions, disability determinations, predicting the quality of the vintage for red Bordeaux wines, and predicting the quality of sound in opera houses. This is often the most persuasive argument in favor of the general acceptance of likewise statistically based tools.

Relevance/Fit

When evaluating evidence based on actuarial risk assessment, courts must judge the evidence’s relevance or fit: Whether the risk that is measured by the actuarial risk assessment tools is the same as the risk that must be determined under the governing law.

It should be renowned that fit questions are possible to raise only because of the relative precision and transparency of actuarial risk assessment. In the clinical method, by dissimilarity, the clinician translates empirical research into risk assessment testimony. The relationship between the outcomes measured in the research and the outcomes of interest in the courtroom may be obscured by the opacity of the clinician’s expert judgment.

There are two types of problems concerning fit: outcome-measure problems, and group based problems.

Actuarial Risk Assessment rests relate on the probability of a certain outcome; if this outcome is defined differently from the outcome of interest in the SVP law, then fit is imperfect. For example, Californiarequires an assessment of the risk of “predatory” sexual offenses. None of the existing actuarial risk analysis scales limits its outcome measure to “predatory” crimes, and some of the scales may be better at predicting imminent, relatively minor reoffenses rather than the long-term risk of severe crime. Some tools, such as the VRAG, measure the risk of violent recidivism including both sexual and non-sexual crimes. Under some sexually violent persons laws, the relevant question concerns risk in the short-term “under close supervision” or risk “with treatment,” while recent static actuarial risk assessment scales, in general, measure log-term stable risk and do not take changeable environmental factors into consideration.

Risk of recidivism that is estimated by actuarial risk assessment scales is based on aggregate or group data. The instruments tell the empirically measured rate of recidivism among a group of sex offenders who fraction a set of characteristics with the subject of the evaluation. Opponents claim that the group-based information is not relevant to the individual risk assessment required by law. They claim that there is not enough proof that this individual is the same as others in the group, merely because he shares common characteristics. Justice Coyne of the Minnesota Supreme Court has said: “Not only are the statistics concerning the violent behavior of others irrelevant, but it seems to be evil to confine any person on the basis not of that person’s own prior conduct, but on the basis of statistical evidence regarding the behavior of other people.”

Broad Form of Group-Based Objection is that group probabilities are inherently different from predictions of individual behavior. This gives rise to a deep philosophical dispute about whether it makes any sense to speak of probability when applied to a single individual as opposed to a group. In reality, a given individual, released from prison, either commits another crime (risk is 100%) or does not (risk 0%). The huge fabricate of the objection does not distinguish actuarial risk assessment from clinical risk assessment, because all prediction must be group-based, or at least group informed, otherwise it would merely be a guess. However, Actuarial Risk Assessment makes explicit what clinical risk assessment obscures: that prediction and risk assessment are inherently group-based exercises.

The Narrow Form of Group-Based Objection acknowledges that all risk assessment is inherently group-based, but complains that actuarial risk assessment is fixed or immutable, classifying people into predefined bins that are too rigid and fail to account for considerable individual differences. All prediction necessarily treats individuals as abstractions, isolating “essential” features of the group, but critics argue that that actuarial risk assessment is especially defective, because the predictive scales are limited to a few, pre-determined items. This, while a clinician’s expertise presumably allows him or her to choose the factors that he or she deems to be most salient for the individual (i.e., to mentally construct the most relevant reference group), actuarial risk assessment rigidly restricts its assessment to the pre-set factors. Clinical risk assessment, this objection goes, may necessarily categorize individuals, but at least it uses the most salient factors about the individual to form its categories. In contrast, the pre-selected risk predictors of actuarial risk assessment may fail to account for some significant fact about the individual.

In In re Valdez, No. 99-000045CI, at 6 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 21, 2000) (order granting motion to exclude evidence), the trial court points out that none of the actuarial risk assessment tests “seem[s] to include whether the person has been or is being treated, whether he has been or quiet is incarcerated, is under house arrest, or is comatose, although to the unsophisticated, one or more of those factors would seem to bear heavily on future conduct.”

There are three basic approaches for dealing with the “Fit” objection.

First, there are some, relatively rare, circumstances in which actuarial risk assessment should be disregarded in favor of clinical judgments.

Second, some commentators and practitioners advocate the “adjustment” of actuarial risk assessment scores to fable for individualized (dynamic) risk factors. Under this arrangement, the examiner adds or subtracts percentage points from the actuarial risk assessment results to believe risk factors that (in the examiner’s judgment) are not adequately reflected in the actuarial risk assessment result. But many commentators believe that this form of “adjustment” transforms actuarial risk assessment into clinical risk assessment, depriving actuarial risk assessment of its advantage over clinical methods.

Finally, the Weight Plan recognizes that sometimes actuarial risk assessment simply does not answer the precise question asked by the SVP court. The proper arrive is to gaze that the actuarial information is relevant to, but not dispositive of, the legal examine. The lack of precise fit is accounted for in the reduced weight given to the actuarial risk assessment information, but not in a “modification” of that information.

Prejudice

If ARA is materially more prejudicial than clinical assessments, it might not be illogical to exclude the former what admitting CRA. There are three potential sources for prejudice:

1. Concern that the scientific and statistical nature of actuarial assessments will unduly influence the fact-finder into giving it more weight and credibility than it deserves, and that the principle of “actuarial superiority” will exacerbate this tendency. This argument claims that the weaknesses of some ARA instruments are too complex for lay fact-finders to apprehend.

2. Some worry that juries will ignore the lack of “fit” between the actuarially derived risk and the legally relevant risk, thus giving ARA too much weight.

3. The “incriminating significance” of statistical probabilities is obscure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, actuarial risk assessment is yet another resource for determining whether or not a person should be subject to commitment as a sexually violent person. This science is subject to the rules of evidence as any other science, and can be properly bolstered or attacked at trial by a well-informed attorney.

Sources:

Forensic Use of Actuarial Risk Assessment with Sex Offenders: Accuracy, Admissibility, and Accountability, 40 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1443, 1443 (2003).

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 358 (1997).

State v. Post, 541 N.E.2d 115, 132 (Wis. 1995).

In Re Blodgett, 510 N.E.2d 910, 917 n.15 (Minn. 1994).

725 ILCS 207/5

William M. Grove et al., Clinical Versus Mechanical Prediction: A Meta-Analysis, 12 Psychol. Assessment 19, 19 (2000).

Howard E. Barbaree et al.; Evaluating the Predictive Accuracy of Six Risk Assessment Instruments for Adult Sex Offenders, 28 Crim. Just. & Behav. 490, 492 (2000).

John Monahan et al., Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence 7 (2001).

William M. Grove et al., Clinical Versus Mechanical Prediction: A Meta-Analysis, 12 Psychol. Assessment 19, 19 (2000).

Howard E. Barbaree et al., Evaluating the Predictive Accuracy of Six Risk Assessment Instruments for Adult Sex Offenders, 28 Crim. Just. & Behav. 490, 492 (2000).

Randy K. Otto & John Petrila, Admissibility of Testimony Based on Actuarial Scales in Sex Offender Commitments: A Reply to Doren, 3 Sex Offender Law Report 1 (2002); Terence W. Campbell, Sexual Predator Evaluations and Phernology: Considering Issues of Evidentiary Reliability, 18 Beh. Sci. & L. 111, 128 (2000).

BP plc is more than an oil company. My snooping around the Internet gave me quite a surprise. This time the surprise came from the “official websites” linked to BP (listed on BP plc’s official website under “Our Brands”). The most surprising was the official website about BP Solar an affiliate (subsidiary) Solar energy and manufacturing company owned by BP plc. This is why BP plc is categorized as an energy company instead of an oil company. It’s products and services are more than oil, liquid pipelines, and gasoline.

BP plc is a London based entity. BP plc does employ people around the world. There is definitely more to BP plc than solar panels and drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. BP plc provides many services and products throughout the world including the Wild Bean Cafe. In the United States, BP plc is commonly recognized as Arco gas stations, Castrol motor oil, and AM/PM convenience stores. All of these are BP’s brands.

BP plc admits (on its official company website) to be taking “full responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico”. Its website is brimming with information about how this company is helping those affected by this devastating oil spill; even has toll free numbers for claim assistance for those who have incurred “loss of property, net loss of profits and earning capacity, subsistence loss and natural resource damage, removal and shapely up costs, cost of increased public service and gain loss of government revenue” from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP plc further plans to “evaluate all claims for bodily injury even though they are not payable under the Oil Spill Pollution Act of 1990.”

What is BP plc’s history? According to the Wikipedia website this company’s history began on May 1901 with the British entrepreneur William Knox D’Arcy (1849 -1917) who obtained permission from the Shah of Qajar Dynasty in the country of Persia (today known as Iran) to search for oil. May 1908, William Knox D’Arcy struck the first most commercially significant oil find in the Middle East and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was formed. April, 1909 the APOC was incorporated as a subsidiary into the Burmah Oil Company. 1935, the Burmah Oil Company had a name change to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). April 1951, the AIOC was forced by the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran to withdraw from Persia (aka Iran). This new government took over all of the oil sites in Iran and created the National Iranian Oil Company. The British government attempted to contest the Iranian takeover of the AIOC oil sites in Iran through the International Court of Justice in The Hague, located in the Netherlands. The International Court of Justice dismissed the complaint. 1953, after a coup in Iran, the National Iranian Oil Company became an international consortium and AIOC joined this in order to resume its operations in Iran. 1954, AIOC had a name change to British Petroleum Company. 1959, British Petroleum Company expanded out of the Middle East to Alaska in the United States. This occurred 51 years ago and indicates while American companies were expanding to foreign countries, vice versa was occurring within the United States borders by foreign business entities. 1965, British Petroleum Company was the first to strike oil in the North Sea. 1978, the controlling interest of Sohio (Standard Oil of Ohio) was sold to British Petroleum Company thereby allowing expansion into the United States mid-west. In 1979, due to the Iranian Revolution, British Petroleum Company ended and pulled out their business operations in Iran. 1987, British Petroleum Company acquired Britoil, a privatized British oil company. 1984, British Petroleum Company purchased many gas stations in the South Eastern United States that were owned by Standard Oil and Gulf Oil upon these two companys’ merger. 1998, Amoco (aka Standard Oil of Indiana) merged with the British Petroleum Company thus forming BP Amoco plc. 2000 was a landmark year for BP Amoco plc for it acquired Arco (Atlantic Richfield Company) and Burmah Castrol plc (known for Castrol motor oil). BP Amoco plc renamed itself in 2001 to the name used presently BP plc and officially adopted their designate motto as “beyond petroleum”.

BP plc is the fourth largest company in the world; third largest if counted as an “energy company” (per Wikipedia website). BP Solar, created as a Solar power company, has been a subsidiary of BP plc since 1973 (per Wikipedia website). On its company website, BP Solar claims to be the “global leader” in Solar manufacturing. BP Solar’s major manufacturing plants are in Australia, Spain, United States of America, India and China. BP Solar further claims their major plants have increased production since opening and have created more employment in these countries. BP Solar is known globally for its effective solar panel-cells. BP Solar’s headquarters is in Frederick, Maryland. This makes BP Solar an American-based business, even though its parent company is London-based.

BP plc (per its official website) is currently one of the biggest gas producers in the United States of America. BP plc operates 10,000 miles of pipelines which makes it the second largest liquids pipeline company in the United States. BP plc has refineries in California, Indiana, Texas, Ohio, and Washington. These refineries process 1.5 million barrels of crude oil daily. This means economically, the United Kingdom is intertwined with the US economy in Oil production and Solar Power. BP plc also has a 50% vested interest in the Russian oil industry (per Wikipedia website). From an Economic point of idea, BP plc has vested interests in the United States and Russia.

Why would BP plc, a major global conglomerate, take the blame for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? The fact is, BP plc was the company who leased the Deepwater Horizon oil rig from Transocean Ltd which placed BP plc in charge of the experimental “first of its type” drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico on the Deepwater Horizon (more information in the article titled “Transocean Ltd: What Does America Really Know About This Offshore Drilling Company? “, see sources listed below). BP plc did not have a choice in taking “full responsibility” for the incident. BP plc was in charge of the operation therefore legally at fault. Why BP plc on its website and as best as this company can in the news reports claims it is doing everything possible to make amends.

Like any other large conglomerate, it has share and stock holders as well as customers who can at any time shift to another company for their shares, stocks, services, and products. BP plc naturally prefers to acquire their portion and stock holders as well as customers; wants to remain a world-wide company with a honorable reputation. No company wants to go down in history as an environmental murderer. Sadly, BP plc is running into numerous snags along the map in capping the huge oil leak and cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. These setbacks are not helping BP plc’s company image. The news media has been using these for canon fodder against BP plc. Fortunately, BP plc is not acting alone in the Gulf of Mexico. There are others assisting like Transocean Ltd, Environmental Groups, Animal Activist Groups, Forestry Experts, the U.S. Coast Guard, and many others who reside in the affected States (per CNN, Fox News, and CBS Nightly News). These entities are doing their best to make the Gulf of Mexico’s shores and waters oil free. To all of those in the affected oil spill areas assisting BP plc with cleaning up this horrific devastating environmental catastrophe, this concerned American thanks and applauds each of you for your efforts. Our planet is the only home humanity has. All of us are Mother-Earth’s caretakers.

Alicia Rose, daily viewing of CNN and Fox News nightly newscasts, January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2010
Alicia Rose, weekly viewing of the CBS Nightly News, January 1, 2009 through July 9, 2010
Alicia Rose, article “Transocean Ltd: What Does America Really Know About This Offshore Drilling Company? “, published July 3, 2010, Associated Content website: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5551758/transocean_ltd_what_does_america_really.html? cat=3
BP plc, official website: http://www.bp.com
BP, Wikipedia website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
BP Solar, about BP Solar, company website: http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do? categoryId=9071&contentId=7038231
BP Solar, Wikipedia website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP_Solar

With some of the hoopla over the “death panels,” for lack of a better word, dying, and concentrations slowly moving away to other aspects of the health care reform bill, I’m trying to figure out what exactly have we been arguing about? What are the “death panels”, formally known as End-Of-Life counseling, and why all the commotion around it?

Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York residence and current chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, told Fred Thompson on his radio program, on July 16th, 2009 that, “Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.”

She explained that the end-of-life counseling sessions were a way for the government to convince the elderly to, “decline nutrition…decline being hydrated…go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest or in your family’s best interest and slit your life short.”

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh reiterated McCaughey’s remarks on his indicate, on July 21st, 2009, “Mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home. … That’s an invasion of the right to privacy. We can’t have counseling for mothers who are thinking of terminating their pregnancy, but we can go in there and counsel people about to die.”

So by these two descriptions the end-of-life counseling is a way for the government to convince the elderly into giving up care.

McCaughey stated that on page 425 of the reform plan handed down by the Democrats clearly confirms what she was saying.

Page 425, Section 1233 of the bill is labeled “Advance Care Planning Consultation”. It explains that Medicare will cover the costs of end-of-life counseling. Here is the direct quote from the bill:

“such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, primary steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.”

Medicare will cover one session every five years. If a patient becomes very ill in the interim, Medicare will cover additional sessions.

In a very public statement made on Facebook by former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, the program once being called end-of-life counseling was now popularly renamed “Death Panels”. And the Dems’ reform thought was criticized for using the guise of counseling as a cover-up for the government’s true intent of trying to deny the elderly care.

The notion of death panels has terrible imagery attached to it. One can almost envision a committee of shadowy characters coldly sending down decisions of who may live and who will be denied healthcare for the sakes of a balanced budget.

In town hall meetings across the nation Congressmen were screamed at and debated by apprehensive citizens. These citizens were outraged at such a possibility. Was this how Obama was intending on keeping costs uncouth?

This fear or anger at the system was then fuelled by some in the media and politics that repeated the accusations and suggestions made by Limbaugh and McCaughey, and adding to the allegations new fear of euthanasia and Eugenics.

Coupling the Death Panel fears with the birther movement, economic woes, the fright of the disappearance of the rural lifestyle and low confidence in the government has made a very mundane topic health care into a topic more divisive and famous than perhaps the Iraq War and President Bush’s presidency.

And while the nation has been concentrating on Share 1233 of the bill, many are missing out on learning about the rest of the 1100 pages.

So to set the describe straight, what is end-of-life counseling?

According to the bill itself, it is advise on who to talk to for decision making, options on the type of care, options on advance directives and their uses (things like living wills and power of attorneys: meaning people that can pronounce your opinions for you if you end up being in a situation where you can not communicate your wishes).

End-of-life counseling is something that was endorsed by Palin while announcing “Healthcare Decision Day” when she was still Governor of Alaska on April 16th, 2008.

Here are excerpts from her proclamation:

“WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to direct for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these distinguished healthcare decisions. [...]

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide sure and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.“

On July 2, 2009, fair the beginning of last month, Newt Gingrich wrote in a column in the Health Care Reform section of The Washington Post:

“More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide reach care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and swear their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.”

A few months before this the former Speaker of the House had this to say about the same hospital to PBS:

“They have an advanced directive program, and over 90 percent of their patients have an advanced directive. They have electronic health records, so everybody on the staff knows what the advanced directive is. They have a very strong palliative care program for using drugs to manage distress. They have a hospice program.

The result is today, the last two years of your life in costs are about $13,600. The last two years of your life at UCLA are $58,000. Now, why should Medicare pay $58,000 for the same outcome if it could pay $13,600? You can say, well, Los Angeles is more expensive; they do a couple of more complicated things. So fine. So let’s say it ought to be $20,000 at UCLA. That’s still [$38,000] less than it currently is. …

We don’t think the politicians can ever fix this because the hospital lobby is so powerful, and the doctor lobby is so powerful, and the pharmaceutical lobby is so powerful, and the medical technology lobby is so powerful…

And we also know — this is the great irony — the best places in America are always less expensive than the worst places. Health is not like jewelry and automobiles. In jewelry and automobiles you pay a lot more to get a lot better. In health, because the best places do it right the first time, they do it very efficiently, they pay real attention to quality, they’re actually less expensive than the places that are poor.”

In 2003, The Congress passed a Medicare prescription drug bill. This bill was passed with the vote of 203 GOP House of Representative members and 42 GOP Senators. This is an excerpt from that bill:

“The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services equals the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2005.”

Up until recently, the Republicans did not have any complaints against approach directives, also known as end-of-life-counseling and Death Panels. Nor did they have a predicament with the government paying for the counseling through Medicare.

Jim Dau, a spokesman for the AARP, a group that represent people over fifty years of age, called the accusations made by McCaughey, Limbaugh, Palin and Gingrich (after they had decided to use the death panels as a way of attacking the reform idea), as cruel and fallacious.

“We want to develop sure people are making the good decision,” Dau said to St. Petersburg Times, “If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that’s their call. Others will determine it’s not worth going through this trauma.”

Dau wants to make clear that these sessions would not be mandatory, “The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling.”

So what are some of the medical procedures an elderly person might want to opt out of going through?

Richard Dooling, a former respiratory therapist who has written an Op-Ed piece in the Original York Times, was asked by Rebecca Roberts of that on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. This is from the transcript of that show:

“Well, before we have ventilators, an elderly person, let’s say in they’re 90s, they have pneumonia. If you read Sherwin Newland’s “How We Die,” it was a great description of this, used to take about three days because your lungs were filled up with fluid, you would slowly go to sleep. In the last two days, you would be unconscious, and then you would die.

Nowadays, you get pneumonia, you’re 90 years old, and the question becomes, should we put you on a ventilator?

Now, I’m not saying nobody should go on a ventilator, but I’m saying when you do go on the ventilator and you don’t salvage off, then it takes you three, four, five months to die. The whole time you’re being stuck with needles, you’re being turned, you’re acquiring bedsores. You can’t talk because you’re intubated. The intubation tube goes in between your vocal chords into your trachea. And, of course, you feel like you’re chocking the whole time, so you want to pull that tube out. So what do they do? They tie your hands down to make sure that you can’t pull that tube out.

So, if you’re going to that situation without having some end-of-life counseling, which everyone is hysterically referring to now as a death panel, you go in there with no information, it’s basically too late. You’re in no condition to express your wishes, which may be, please, just get these machines out of here and let me go to sleep.”

He then describes what it is like to be in situations some would want to avoid:

“If people could see a videotape of what it is like to exhaust the last two, three months of your life receiving mechanical ventilation, kidney dialysis, being turned, what do bedsores look like and so on, you would have a lot more discretion. You would have a lot more people saying to themselves, gee, I didn’t know that life ended like this. It’s a mess. It’s never sparkling.”

So what are the Death Panels? They are a figment of your imagination. What is end-of-life counseling? It is the kind of information one receives to deal with situations described by Dooling above. So why the heated debate over end-of-life counseling? The right-wing decided it was something it could consume to attack the Dems’ healthcare reform plan, which broke the camel’s abet on the right side of the political spectrum.