<iframe src="http://www.indiegogo.com/project/434027/widget" width="224px" height="486px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Obama isn't a socialist, and director of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", who immigrated from socialist-era Czechoslovakia, tells you why (from the NYT)
I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Patient Safety and Quality: For-profit dialysis chains have higher mortality rates than non-profit dialysis chain. From Research Activities, 12/2011
Research Activities, December 2011: Patient Safety and Quality: For-profit dialysis chains have higher mortality rates than non-profit dialysis chain
To learn more about Nephrotic Syndrome, FSGS, and Minimal Change Disease, as well as link with patients, families, friends and caregivers for support and inspiration, visit Nephspace and contact the NephCure Foundation for other research, education, and advocacy opportunities.
The following is an excerpt from the December 2011 Newsletter for Patient Safety and Quality from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For the original newsletter, and to receive email updates, please click here or cut and paste the following link in your browser: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/dec11/1211RA11.htm
"Concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered to end-stage renal dialysis (ESRD) patients, given that most large dialysis providers are for profit (FP) entities. Of the five largest dialysis chains, the lowest mortality risk was found among patients treated at a nonprofit (NP) chain, according to Yi Zhang, Ph.D., and colleagues at the Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute in Bethesda, MD. Compared with the nonprofit chain, mortality risk was 19 percent higher at one FP chain and 24 percent higher at a second FP chain. Overall, patients from FP facilities, regardless of chain status, had a 13 percent higher risk of mortality than NP facilities.Most U.S. patients with ESRD receive hemodialysis treatment three times a week from Medicare-certified dialysis facilities. Since 1991, the number of chain-owned dialysis facilities has grown more than 11-fold. Today, roughly 85 percent of the FP and nearly one-third of the NP facilities are operated by large corporations. Some contend that lower resource use in the delivery of dialysis by FP facilities compromises the health outcomes of dialysis patients. A number of earlier studies have suggested that factors related to practice patterns, such as dialysis dose, vascular access, and injectable drugs (including epoetin therapy, vitamin D, and iron) can influence patient outcomes.This study evaluated and compared the use of all three major injectable drugs among dialysis facilities. The findings suggest that patients from the NP chain who used the least amount of injectable drugs had the best survival. If all other chains were to follow the resource use of the NP chain, costs of injectable drugs might be reduced without compromising patient outcomes, with the caveat that the provider will not excessively lower doses. The study included 3,601 free-standing dialysis facilities and 34,914 Medicare patients with ESRD during 2004. The study was supported in part by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS18697).See "The effect of dialysis chains on mortality among patients receiving hemodialysis," by Dr. Zhang, Dennis J. Cotter, M.S.E., and Mae Thamer, Ph.D., in the June 2011 HSR: Health Services Research 46(3), pp.747-767.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Road to the Carter 4 Mixtape - download here free
Download the Road to the Carter 4 Mixtape - Lil' Wayne. The hype is rype - sick mixtape.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
NephCure Ambassador Dawn Evans Featured in USA Today
 | ||||||
| ||||||
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Cheap Textbooks!
I'm a law student, and textbooks can cost over $1,000 a semester. Because of Textbooks.com, I got mine for under $250 this semester. Easy and safe. Click the link below.
http://textbooks.tellapal.com/a/clk/ljl1s
http://textbooks.tellapal.com/a/clk/ljl1s
Friday, December 3, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Check out music from School Of Business SOB
My boy Cass manages these guys. Sick New Orleans hip-hop. Not what you'd expect, better.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Exclusive - Jay-Z Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 11/17/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
Exclusive - Jay-Z Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 11/17/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Jay-Z Extended Interview | ||||
| ||||
Monday, October 11, 2010
Jon Stewart: The Most Trusted Name In Fake News Rallies to restore SANITY. Download the NPR interview Here.
Jon Stewart recorded an interview in front of an live audience last week. Check out the story on NPR.org
In an NPR interview at the World's Third-Most-Sacred Jewish Site, the 92nd Street Y in New York City, the comedian and host of the Daily Show discusses his Rally to Restore Sanity, being held on the National Mall on October 30 (as well as Steven Colbert's "rival" Rally to Keep Fear Alive. He also delves into Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, his remarkable similarities to Glenn Beck, and why his rally will be just like "Woodstock, but with the nudity and drugs replaced by respectful disagreement."
Download the mp3 of the interview HERE:
Download John Stewart's interview with Terry Gross, (mp3) in its entirety HERE!
In an NPR interview at the World's Third-Most-Sacred Jewish Site, the 92nd Street Y in New York City, the comedian and host of the Daily Show discusses his Rally to Restore Sanity, being held on the National Mall on October 30 (as well as Steven Colbert's "rival" Rally to Keep Fear Alive. He also delves into Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, his remarkable similarities to Glenn Beck, and why his rally will be just like "Woodstock, but with the nudity and drugs replaced by respectful disagreement."
Download the mp3 of the interview HERE:
Download John Stewart's interview with Terry Gross, (mp3) in its entirety HERE!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
David Vitter's Forgotten Crimes
David Vitter's Forgotten Crimes
Senator David Vitter knowingly employs a Criminal who abuses and imprison women, bangs hookers, and runs his campaigns on his "family values." Vote him out in November!
Senator David Vitter knowingly employs a Criminal who abuses and imprison women, bangs hookers, and runs his campaigns on his "family values." Vote him out in November!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
A Stellar “Superjam” - My memories and the Offbeat Archive...
The New Years Dilemma & A Stellar “Superjam” :: offBeat :: Louisiana and New Orleans Online Music Resource
A few months after moving to New Orleans, I had my first true funky experience, at what I believe was the 6th Superfly Superjam, at the Howlin' Wolf. I just had no idea... An old friend, Scotty, who lived across the hall from me in the freshman dorm - Sharp Hall - at Tulane, convinced me to go, and I've been searching in vain for funk OR jazz that good ever since. If I were to point to one moment that made me a "lifer" in New Orleans (I'm in Baton Rouge now, but I'm gonna make it back soon - stupid law school) it was eleven years ago, around 1:45am, December 4th, watching Porter and Medeski go at it, smilin' and trying to one-up each other, while I was watching from the balcony dumb-founded and drooling (from the music and the strong drinks). Oh, Superfly, why spend the summers in Tennessee, when you could be throwing sick parties back home? I found the description on the old OffBeat archives...
"The people at Superfly Productions have put together an outstanding aggregation of talent for December 4th at the Howlin’ Wolf: John Medeski (keys), John Scofield (guitar), George Porter, Jr. (bass), Zigaboo Modeliste (drums), and a horn section featuring Roger Lewis (baritone sax) and Gregory Davis (trumpet) of the Dirty Dozen and Clarence Johnson (tenor sax). The idea to combine the original Meters rhythm section (Porter, Modeliste) with two masters of jazz fusion (Medeski, Scofield) and a killer New Orleans hon section is brilliant to say the least. Adding to the excitement, this is the first, and possibly only time they will perform as a group.
The show is the sixth installment of the popular “Superjam” series. These are essentially well-promoted all-star jam sessions which, even if all the players on stage aren’t coming out of the jazz idiom (and usually at least a few do), thrive on the kind of spontaneous interaction and virtuosity associated with jazz. The dramatic success of these shows (people are still talking about the sold-out ‘99 Jazz Fest “Superjam,” which also featured Medeski) is ample proof that live music audiences remain hungry for the most essential element in jazz, improvisation."
PostScript by Jon - that was definitely the only time they have ever played. If anyone out there has a recording of this show... well I'd be willing to do some pretty extreme things to get a hold of it.
Also Posted on WWOZ's facebook page, a response to "Magical Crescent City Moments."
A few months after moving to New Orleans, I had my first true funky experience, at what I believe was the 6th Superfly Superjam, at the Howlin' Wolf. I just had no idea... An old friend, Scotty, who lived across the hall from me in the freshman dorm - Sharp Hall - at Tulane, convinced me to go, and I've been searching in vain for funk OR jazz that good ever since. If I were to point to one moment that made me a "lifer" in New Orleans (I'm in Baton Rouge now, but I'm gonna make it back soon - stupid law school) it was eleven years ago, around 1:45am, December 4th, watching Porter and Medeski go at it, smilin' and trying to one-up each other, while I was watching from the balcony dumb-founded and drooling (from the music and the strong drinks). Oh, Superfly, why spend the summers in Tennessee, when you could be throwing sick parties back home? I found the description on the old OffBeat archives...
"The people at Superfly Productions have put together an outstanding aggregation of talent for December 4th at the Howlin’ Wolf: John Medeski (keys), John Scofield (guitar), George Porter, Jr. (bass), Zigaboo Modeliste (drums), and a horn section featuring Roger Lewis (baritone sax) and Gregory Davis (trumpet) of the Dirty Dozen and Clarence Johnson (tenor sax). The idea to combine the original Meters rhythm section (Porter, Modeliste) with two masters of jazz fusion (Medeski, Scofield) and a killer New Orleans hon section is brilliant to say the least. Adding to the excitement, this is the first, and possibly only time they will perform as a group.
The show is the sixth installment of the popular “Superjam” series. These are essentially well-promoted all-star jam sessions which, even if all the players on stage aren’t coming out of the jazz idiom (and usually at least a few do), thrive on the kind of spontaneous interaction and virtuosity associated with jazz. The dramatic success of these shows (people are still talking about the sold-out ‘99 Jazz Fest “Superjam,” which also featured Medeski) is ample proof that live music audiences remain hungry for the most essential element in jazz, improvisation."
PostScript by Jon - that was definitely the only time they have ever played. If anyone out there has a recording of this show... well I'd be willing to do some pretty extreme things to get a hold of it.
Also Posted on WWOZ's facebook page, a response to "Magical Crescent City Moments."
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Key Religious Groups Either Oppose Or Won't Weigh In On 'Ground Zero Mosque' - From TPM
Links on "Talking Points Memo" | Facebook
I posted this comment to a story about how the media has blown the issue of the Muslim community center being built two blocks from Ground Zero WAY out of proportion. Check the discussion out on facebook, and be informed.
I posted this comment to a story about how the media has blown the issue of the Muslim community center being built two blocks from Ground Zero WAY out of proportion. Check the discussion out on facebook, and be informed.
Remember how the earliest colonies, the original European inhabitants of the Americas, fled Europe because they could not practice their religions openly. The Puritans, the Quakers (thank you, Will Penn) all driven out by the majorities - the Catholics and the Church of England. Congress shall make no law respecting religion, and all shall have complete religious freedom in the Unites States because of this heritage. Our country is great because people can believe whatever they want, openly and without fear. I'm not a Muslim, but the groups and individuals who are fighting this mosque are trying to infringe on all of our personal freedoms. Many of these same people claim to be 'strict constructionists.' How can they sleep at night?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
LA Bishops To Jindal: Uh, No, You Can't Bring Guns Into Our Churches | TPM LiveWire
So, who is the biggest reactionary who is out of touch with the majority of the American (and the world) population? Choices:
1) The Catholic Church
2) The Louisiana Legislature
3) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
4) or comment with your own response.
See the official discussion here:
LA Bishops To Jindal: Uh, No, You Can't Bring Guns Into Our Churches | TPM LiveWire
1) The Catholic Church
2) The Louisiana Legislature
3) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
4) or comment with your own response.
See the official discussion here:
LA Bishops To Jindal: Uh, No, You Can't Bring Guns Into Our Churches | TPM LiveWire
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Tar balls reach Lake Pontchartrain | NOLA.com
Tar balls reach Lake Pontchartrain | NOLA.com
I can't really comment on this. I'm all the way in Baton Rouge. But I hope I can, because of the gravity of the situation, re-print the picture associated with the article here... Thank you Nola.com and Times-Pic, for your outstanding reporting on this travesty, the greatest environmental disaster (hopefully) in our lifetime.
I can't really comment on this. I'm all the way in Baton Rouge. But I hope I can, because of the gravity of the situation, re-print the picture associated with the article here... Thank you Nola.com and Times-Pic, for your outstanding reporting on this travesty, the greatest environmental disaster (hopefully) in our lifetime.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Ultimate Guide to Internet Law: 100 Guides and Resources for Future Lawyers | OEDb
The Ultimate Guide to Internet Law: 100 Guides and Resources for Future Lawyers | OEDb
A list from two years ago, but still a good list.
A list from two years ago, but still a good list.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sarah Palin and Osama Bin Laden have the same speechwriter.
She sounds more and more like Osama Bin Laden, or perhaps an Imam in Iran, every day. Lets count the countries that have a legal system based on religious texts, and have only religious courts, which is what Palin is talking about: Saudi Arabia and Iran. 2 countries, hardly the bastion of civil liberties, safety for women like Ms. Palin, or freedom. Other countries that rely on religion for part of their legal system: Afghanistan, Libya and Sudan. None of those countries have had anything like a women's liberation movement. I would say that moving to this sort of political system may be an improvement, because it would shut Sarah Palin up. But then I would be supporting something that Sarah Palin wants, because that is exactly what her idea is.
Oh yeah, the Vatican is also run by a religious organization. It's a little safer than the other countries mentioned, but don't bring your kids.
I don't like to use this word, because it is hurtful to mentally challenged people, but Sarah Palin is F***ing retarded.
Oh yeah, the Vatican is also run by a religious organization. It's a little safer than the other countries mentioned, but don't bring your kids.
I don't like to use this word, because it is hurtful to mentally challenged people, but Sarah Palin is F***ing retarded.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Les Claypool and Gogol Bordello Play Tom Waits! Listen Here.
Track List:
Disk 1
01.Intro
02.That's the Way
03.I'll Be Gone
04.I Don't Wanna Grow Up
05.Way Down in a Hole
06.Cold Cold Ground
07.Russian Dance
Disk 2
01.Lay Your Head
02.Bullets
03.Dead And Lovely
04.Banter
05.16 Shells #
06.Big In Japan #
07.D's Diner #
08.More Russian Dance
02.That's the Way
03.I'll Be Gone
04.I Don't Wanna Grow Up
05.Way Down in a Hole
06.Cold Cold Ground
07.Russian Dance
Disk 2
01.Lay Your Head
02.Bullets
03.Dead And Lovely
04.Banter
05.16 Shells #
06.Big In Japan #
07.D's Diner #
08.More Russian Dance
Download the whole show in mp3 The Simpson go to the Holy Land!
This is a surprisingly accurate portrayal of the Israeli tourist industry. If you've ever gone on a birthright trip don't miss this. Remember all in good fun!
hulu.com/watch/135130/the-simpsons-the-greatest-story-ever-dohed#
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Why is it that so many "scholars," particularly legal scholars, ignore the obvious?
The author of this post:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/american-judicial-idol/
proposes that the Supreme Court should not sign opinions, all opinions should be per curium, etc., to end the "cult of celebrity" associated with the Supreme Court.
This is me, playing the world's smallest violin, for those schmucks upset about the "cult of celebrity" of Supreme Court justices. And this is why I think... no, I know... that her arguments for changing the Supreme Court are without merit. I posted this on Above the Law earlier today:
As a guest mentioned yesterday, we live in a common law jurisdiction, not a civil law jurisdiction. ALL of the other countries mentioned, where there are only per curium opinions, unsigned, no dissenters, are all civil law countries. For those of you who never took a comparative law course in law school (or a history course in high school - these comments, and the original article from Ms. Greenhouse, are proof that public education needs some serious work) application of a civil code requires a very different role for judges. Rather than "interpreting" the law, it is the job of the lawyers to explain to the judges the interpretation of the law, and then only if the language of the code is unclear. The judges apply the code. Also, in every single case, the code and the words of the code trump judicial decisions. There is no "precedent" in civil law. So, what is important is the decision, because it applies the code, but the judge who applied it did not make "new" law or change it. If there are too many inconsistent decisions, the code is changed. Here in Louisiana, they change the code all the time. The code, however, is NOT a constitution, and is not meant to be applied as such. Civil Law countries also have Constitutions, like we do, and neither the Code, other statutes, or application thereof, are allowed to conflict with a particular jurisdiction's constitution.
In sum, making the changes in this article is the first step in abandoning our judicial system, which has had an awful lot to do with the shaping of our culture, and particularly our evolving individual rights.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/american-judicial-idol/
proposes that the Supreme Court should not sign opinions, all opinions should be per curium, etc., to end the "cult of celebrity" associated with the Supreme Court.
This is me, playing the world's smallest violin, for those schmucks upset about the "cult of celebrity" of Supreme Court justices. And this is why I think... no, I know... that her arguments for changing the Supreme Court are without merit. I posted this on Above the Law earlier today:
As a guest mentioned yesterday, we live in a common law jurisdiction, not a civil law jurisdiction. ALL of the other countries mentioned, where there are only per curium opinions, unsigned, no dissenters, are all civil law countries. For those of you who never took a comparative law course in law school (or a history course in high school - these comments, and the original article from Ms. Greenhouse, are proof that public education needs some serious work) application of a civil code requires a very different role for judges. Rather than "interpreting" the law, it is the job of the lawyers to explain to the judges the interpretation of the law, and then only if the language of the code is unclear. The judges apply the code. Also, in every single case, the code and the words of the code trump judicial decisions. There is no "precedent" in civil law. So, what is important is the decision, because it applies the code, but the judge who applied it did not make "new" law or change it. If there are too many inconsistent decisions, the code is changed. Here in Louisiana, they change the code all the time. The code, however, is NOT a constitution, and is not meant to be applied as such. Civil Law countries also have Constitutions, like we do, and neither the Code, other statutes, or application thereof, are allowed to conflict with a particular jurisdiction's constitution.
In sum, making the changes in this article is the first step in abandoning our judicial system, which has had an awful lot to do with the shaping of our culture, and particularly our evolving individual rights.
It is true, Miss Greenhouse, that "the toxic confirmation battle in selecting Supreme Court justices is a truly American experience. So? America remains the greatest country on the planet, and it is because of the particularities of our history that we remain the greatest country. People, stop trying to screw this up. I'm no conservative, and I don't really like the decisions coming out of the Court now, either, but come on. If our judges were like those of France or Italy, America there would have been even more impediment toward the establishment of our now-protected liberties that we hold so dear, like the fact that you can vote. So, stop confusing people with a selective view of reality, and no look to history.
Friday, April 23, 2010
HubbleSite - Wallpaper: Mystic Mountain
This is amazing.
HubbleSite - Wallpaper: Mystic Mountain: "
Source: Hubblesite.org"
About This Image
Hubble's 20th anniversary image shows a mountain of dust and gas rising in the Carina Nebula. The top of a three-light-year tall pillar of cool hydrogen is being worn away by the radiation of nearby stars, while stars within the pillar unleash jets of gas that stream from the peaks.
Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Livio and the Hubble 20th Anniversary Team (STScI)
HubbleSite - Wallpaper: Mystic Mountain: "
Source: Hubblesite.org"
About This Image
Hubble's 20th anniversary image shows a mountain of dust and gas rising in the Carina Nebula. The top of a three-light-year tall pillar of cool hydrogen is being worn away by the radiation of nearby stars, while stars within the pillar unleash jets of gas that stream from the peaks.
Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Livio and the Hubble 20th Anniversary Team (STScI)
Help New Orleans by voting for better Health Care by Tulane
Help TULANE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER win $50,000
We Need Your Vote!
Tulane University Community Health Center (TUCHC) is pleased to be a finalist in the People to People Ambassador Program. People to People, the leader in global educational travel, would like the citizens of New Orleans to know that the devastation of Hurricane Katrina has not been forgotten and that is dedicated to assisting the ongoing recovery efforts in New Orleans.
How Can You Help TUCHC win $50,000?
1. Visit http://www.remembernola.com/
2. Download the NOLA badge (People to People will donate $1 for each download)
3. VOTE for TUCHC!
4. Send this email to friends, family and colleagues and ask for their vote! (i.e. Send this email to your friends, post the link to Facebook, etc.)
5. VOTE again tomorrow!
Tulane University Community Health Center will put the $50K toward construction costs of our new location to expand quality medical services to more patients in a new, healthy environment. The new location is 3.5 times the size of our current clinic, and will be LEED certified.
What is TUCHC?
TUCHC is dedicated to improving the health of our New Orleans neighbors by providing high-quality, cost-effective, neighborhood-based care to all, regardless of insurance status. We have offered quality primary care and mental health services since our meager beginnings as a first aid station in Sept 2005 following Hurricane Katrina. We actively train the next generation of health professionals, and partner with the community to develop innovative models of care. TUCHC recognizes that health is more than getting a person to a doctor, thus offers supportive services and provides a team-based approach to care. Activities to occur at the new location include a Community Room for community meetings, exercise classes and educational forums so patients can develop lifeskills for success. The focus is to keep people healthy so they can contribute to a more equitable and thriving New Orleans.
TUCHC will be awarded $50,000 the first week of July--if we receive the most votes!
Online voting runs now through May 31, 2010. You are not restricted on the number of times you can vote.
Your support is appreciated. Together we can build a healthy New Orleans.
Want Palin to speak? She demands a private Lear 60 Jet and bendy straws
The New York Times reported the following last week:
The Caucus: Report: For Palin Speeches, Luxury Rooms and Bendable Straws
By By ANAHAD O'CONNOR
Published: April 13, 2010
A contract suggests that when Sarah Palin gives a speech, careful preparations are necessary.
Basically, a few ballsy students went dumpster-diving for pieces of the speaking agreement between Sarah Palin and California State University at Stanislaus. I commend the students dedication to the truth, and although what was discovered is not shocking in the least considering what Palin is (a media-contrived harpy with dollar signs and white houses in her one good non-winking eye) it does uncover the fact that, in the middle of an unprecedented budget crises, a state-funded California University is paying what must add up to be hundreds of thousands of dollars for an ex-governor to speak at a $500/plate fund-raising event. How much money do they expect to make from this event, exactly?
From the article:
I hope Mr. Yee gets somewhere, and if there is ever an excuse for stepping on someone's back in order to further your own career, Mr. Yee, you found it. Best of luck.
Unfortunately, no Palinites will budge because of this. They are all as learning disabled as her son, who has been thrust into the media spotlight as her only credential as "Jane six-pack." Oh yeah, she also spent her childhood getting free healthcare from Canada...
The Caucus: Report: For Palin Speeches, Luxury Rooms and Bendable Straws
By By ANAHAD O'CONNOR
Published: April 13, 2010
A contract suggests that when Sarah Palin gives a speech, careful preparations are necessary.
Basically, a few ballsy students went dumpster-diving for pieces of the speaking agreement between Sarah Palin and California State University at Stanislaus. I commend the students dedication to the truth, and although what was discovered is not shocking in the least considering what Palin is (a media-contrived harpy with dollar signs and white houses in her one good non-winking eye) it does uncover the fact that, in the middle of an unprecedented budget crises, a state-funded California University is paying what must add up to be hundreds of thousands of dollars for an ex-governor to speak at a $500/plate fund-raising event. How much money do they expect to make from this event, exactly?
From the article:
A local state senator, Leland Yee, Democrat of San Francisco, has been trying to uncover details of the event for weeks. But the university has said that a private foundation hired Ms. Palin for the event and that her contract contains a privacy clause forbidding the release of details of her contract.
On Tuesday, Mr. Yee held a news conference in Sacramento to announce that a group of students apparently had discovered parts of the contract. He was accompanied at the news conference by the students, who said they found the documents last week in a garbage bin outside the school’s administration building after getting a tip that school officials might be shredding them.
According to The San Francisco Chronicle, the documents do not specifically identify the “speaker” as Ms. Palin, but the contract included specifics on travel arrangements from Anchorage. The documents state that the speaker must fly to California first class if she flies commercial. If not, “the private aircraft MUST BE a Lear 60 or larger,” The Associated Press reported. Other perks include a suite and two single rooms at a luxury hotel near the campus. The contract, however, does not specify how much the speaker will be paid for her services.
Both Mr. Yee and the A.P. had previously requested details of Ms. Palin’s contract from the university, citing the California Public Records Act. But the university turned them down, saying university foundations were not subject to the public records requirements. Mr. Yee is now introducing a bill that would force campus foundations to follow public records requirements.
I hope Mr. Yee gets somewhere, and if there is ever an excuse for stepping on someone's back in order to further your own career, Mr. Yee, you found it. Best of luck.
Unfortunately, no Palinites will budge because of this. They are all as learning disabled as her son, who has been thrust into the media spotlight as her only credential as "Jane six-pack." Oh yeah, she also spent her childhood getting free healthcare from Canada...
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Is Health Care Reform Constitutional? From JURIST - Forum
This came from the Jurist, and pretty much writes my Constitutional Law exam for me... to bad it's closed book...
Blog: JURIST - Forum
Post: Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
Link: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/04/is-health-care-reform-constitutional.php
Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
JURIST Guest Columnist Sallie Sanford of the University of Washington School of Law says that although challenges to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are valuable for inspiring dialogue within and outside the legal community, they are unlikely to succeed in the face of decades of Supreme Court case law....
The ink had barely dried on the president’s signature when the lawsuits commenced. Three lawsuits filed in federal court now challenge the constitutionality of key provisions in the new health care reform law.
If a court does reach the merits in these lawsuits, it will almost certainly uphold the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under existing case law, Congress has appropriate authority under either its power to regulate interstate commerce or its power to tax and spend for the general welfare. To find otherwise would require a significant shift in Constitutional jurisprudence.
The Individual Mandate
The primary challenge in each of the lawsuits is to the “individual mandate” – the requirement in the new law that most citizens have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. There are several statutory exemptions, including for religious objections, for financial hardship, and if the least expensive plan would cost more than 8% of household income.
Unless an exemption applies, however, each citizen will be required to have health insurance, either through Medicare, Medicaid, an employer-sponsored plan, or individual purchase; premium and cost-sharing subsidies will be available for those with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level. People who are required to have insurance and do not will be taxed, with the tax rate ratcheting up over time to reach $695 per person or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater.
Commerce Clause and Tax and Spend Authority
Under our system of government, Congress may exercise only those powers that are specified by the Constitution or that are “necessary and proper” for exercising those express powers. Among the express powers is the regulation of interstate commerce.
In the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, the US Supreme Court considered a challenge to the federal government’s authority to regulate, under a Depression-era price-stabilization law, wheat grown for a farmer’s own personal use. The court concluded that this wheat production, though not for sale, did impact interstate commerce because it reduced the amount the farmer would buy and, considering the activities of similar-minded farmers, would impact the total amount grown.
Following this decision, a variety of federal laws have been upheld as authorized under this power to regulate activities that “arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.” In the Heart of Atlanta Motel case, for example, the Court held that a motel owner’s decision not to allow black people to rent rooms impacts interstate commerce and thus could be prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was grounded in Congress’ interstate commerce powers.
Health care constitutes a huge portion of our nation’s economy, currently constituting more than 17% of the GDP. Both health care and health insurance indisputably impact interstate commerce.
Two modern cases have, on a 5-4 basis, overturned federal laws as beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause. In the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the Court struck down a law mandating a gun-free zone around public schools because it was “a criminal statute that by its terms had nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise.” The court wrote that there must be a distinction between Congress’ authority and the general police powers retained by the states, between “what is truly national and what is truly local.” Utilizing a similar rationale, and also on a 5-4 basis, the Court’s 2000 decision in United States v. Morrison invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act.
In 2005, however, a 6-3 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, once again affirmed an expansive view of the Commerce Clause. The Court held that the federal government has the power to supersede state law, and to prohibit marijuana cultivation, even if grown at home for personal medical use and not for sale.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that: “We need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.” Congress could rationally conclude that medical marijuana might find its way into interstate commerce, and, as with Farmer Filburn’s wheat, that growing one’s own could impact the overall market, particularly considering the cumulative impact of numerous growers.
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia formed part of the Raich majority. Justice Scalia’s concurrence explains that this case differed from Lopez and Morrison (in which both he and Kennedy had voted to limit Congress’ authority) and that Congress may in the appropriate circumstance regulate non-economic intrastate activity.
In his Raich concurrence, Justice Scalia maintains that “the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.” Under the structure of the new health reform law, the requirement to have insurance is integral to Congress’ overall approach to regulating insurance practices and attempting to stabilize the insurance market.
The Inactivity Argument
The plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits argue, however, that the individual mandate is different because it attempts to regulate inactivity. By definition, they maintain, a person who declines to purchase health insurance is not engaging in commerce at all.
A gamble to remain uninsured does, however, impose economic costs in at least two ways. The first is when an uninsured person seeks medical treatment. Because of a federal emergency care law, state legal requirements, hospital mission obligation, and actions rooted in medical ethics, that care is sometimes mandated and is often provided. Particularly when the patient comes in through the emergency room, as is not infrequently the case, costs are substantial and often go unpaid, either because of a decision at the outset to provide “charity care” or because the patient does not pay the bill.
Findings in the new law estimate the costs of providing uncompensated care at $43 billion in 2008. While many of these costs are ultimately borne by federal, state, and local governments (in the form of subsidies to hospitals and clinics), a substantial amount is shifted to insured patients. Findings in the new law estimate that $1,000 of the cost of an employer-provided family insurance premium (out of an average of about $13,000) is attributable to uncompensated care.
The second way that being uninsured imposes economic costs is by shifting the insured risk pool. Among the approximately one in seven United States citizens who lack insurance, a significant percentage is young and healthy. By not participating in the insurance market, by gambling that they will not need expensive health care (or that if they do, someone else will pick up the tab), they skew insurance pools towards an older and sicker population, raising the premium costs. Thus, this sort of inactivity or non-participation does have an economic impact, and certainly a far more substantial economic impact than the growing of marijuana for personal, medical use.
The plaintiffs also argue that unlike with state requirements to have car insurance, one cannot avoid the requirement by declining the activity. One can avoid a state’s requirement to purchase car insurance by not driving. Unless an exemption applies, however, one cannot avoid the requirement to have health insurance, as it is attached simply to the condition of being a citizen.
There is no direct precedent for a federal law requiring purchase of a private product without the option to not engage in the triggering activity. Businesses can in theory avoid federal requirements to install (privately purchased) environmental or safety equipment by not engaging in the business. Those of us who did not want to buy a new television or sign up for cable service to maintain realistic access after the recent conversion could simply not watch television at home.
More to the point, though, the health reform law does offer a choice. Rather than purchasing health insurance (though an employer-sponsored plan or on the individual market) one can choose to pay the tax. The tax has been criticized by many, in fact, as being too low to act as an incentive. These critics raise the policy concern that some will choose to pay the tax until they get expensively sick or injured and then, based on other, inexorably linked provisions in the new law, insurance companies will be obligated to sell them a plan without pre-existing condition limits or cost adjustments.
The Supreme Court has long upheld the ability of the federal government to regulate behavior through taxation. In a 1937 case, the Court noted that “[e]very tax is in some measure regulatory. . . . But [it] is not any less a tax because it has a regulatory effect[.]” Congress’ taxation power cannot burden a fundamental right, but there is no fundamental right to be uninsured. Some have argued that if this is not really a behavior-encouraging and revenue-raising tax but more of a pure penalty, then there needs to be a separate source of authority, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The Current Court
Even if that is true, the Supreme Court, as described above, has recently reaffirmed a broad interpretation of the commerce clause. The two most recent justices to join the court replaced two dissenters, and thus if they change the calculus it would be to add support to the view that the law is constitutional. Justice Scalia, however, who concurred in the judgment in Raich, has long advocated an “originalist” or more limited view of federal power. It is conceivable that he might find that the health care reform’s individual mandate goes beyond the reach of federal powers and into the state’s police power domain.
That potentially leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. And, of course, the author of the Raich opinion has just announced that he will retire at the end of the current term. The loss of Justice Steven’s persuasive force might have an impact on the court’s analysis.
Medicaid Expansion and Insurance Exchanges
The Florida Attorney General’s lawsuit, which a dozen other attorneys general have joined, also contends that the new law encroaches on state sovereignty by creating state-based insurance exchanges and by expanding Medicaid eligibility. Both of these provisions, they argue, will impose on the states increased costs and expanded administrative burdens and, generally, will “commandeer” them into the service of the federal government.
These arguments have even less of a chance of success than do those related to the individual mandate. The states are not required to set up the exchanges. Under the terms of the law, if a state does not do so, the federal government will. To encourage states to use their regulatory and administrative powers to set up these exchanges, the law offers some funding.
Similarly, states are legally free to drop out of the Medicaid program and to forego the matching dollars that accompany it. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program in which the federal government sends financial support to state programs that, in compliance with federal guidelines, provide health care to low-income people. Wealthier states have a baseline 50/50 match, meaning that for every dollar they spend, the federal government contributes at least a dollar. The less well-off states have at least a 25/75 match.
It is true that, as a practical matter, states are heavily reliant on the matching Medicaid dollars to care for their poorest citizens and to support key safety-net health care providers. It is also true that Medicaid funding is a significant part of most states’ beleaguered budgets. The new law expands eligibility by opening the program up to all citizens and legal residents with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level. This will have the effect of adding many adults to the program. Initially, the federal government will cover all of the costs of providing care to the newly eligible, though this coverage will ratchet down to 90% over a few years.
The Supreme Court has upheld similar conditional-spending arrangements as valid exercises of Congress’ tax and spend authority. In South Dakota v. Dole, for example, the Court upheld a federal law that withheld 5% of highway funds from any state that did not raise its legal drinking age to 21. The Court did recognize in Dole that “in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’" To date, the Court has not identified such a circumstance.
It is hard to reasonably argue that the new law’s Medicaid expansion inducement reaches the point of compulsion. Congress has changed Medicaid conditions numerous times over the years and, with this new eligibility expansion, the federal government will initially assume most of the costs of the newly eligible. The exchanges present even less of a case for compulsion as they do not yet exist, and the new law provides some administrative funds for their establishment.
Procedural Hurdles
The plaintiffs also face significant hurdles before a court would get to the merits of their claims. One hurdle is ripeness. The challenged provisions do not go into effect for several years. In general, a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that might not occur; an exception might be made for a purely legal challenge to a law, such as this one, that will require significant advance groundwork. However, with Republican calls to “repeal and replace,” it is not far-fetched to wonder if the challenged provisions will survive. Such was the fate of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which, in the late 1980s, was repealed before it went into effect.
Another procedural hurdle is standing. In general, only those who are being, or imminently will be harmed by a law can challenge its constitutionality. The individual mandate, if it were in effect, would certainly harm some individuals. Its harm to the states is less clear, and it is on the states’ behalf that the plaintiffs in the Florida case have filed their complaint.
In a 2007 case, the Supreme Court did grant states standing to challenge the EPA’s inaction on greenhouse gas regulation, finding sufficient injury on the theory that the states were impacted by potential changes to their coastlines and to overall environmental wellbeing. Drawing on this 5-4 decision, perhaps the states could make a not-yet-articulated argument having to do with diverted state tax revenue and population wellbeing, but this seems a stretch. The separate complaint filed by the Virginia attorney general is based on that state’s recent enactment of a law purporting to nullify the individual mandate as to Virginia residents, and the defense of that law perhaps provides a toe-hold into standing. The Thomas More Law Center plaintiffs do include four individual citizens. And of course, if the other complaints survive the ripeness and other challenges, individuals might join as plaintiffs.
Nonetheless, based on decades of Supreme Court case law, the substantive challenges to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are unlikely to succeed. They are likely, though, to continue to inspire discussions within the legal community and within the general public about the role of government, the nature of health care, and the obligations of citizens. Perhaps that, in itself, is a valuable outcome.
Sallie Sanford is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Washington.
April 21, 2010
--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/
Blog: JURIST - Forum
Post: Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
Link: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/04/is-health-care-reform-constitutional.php
Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
JURIST Guest Columnist Sallie Sanford of the University of Washington School of Law says that although challenges to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are valuable for inspiring dialogue within and outside the legal community, they are unlikely to succeed in the face of decades of Supreme Court case law....
The ink had barely dried on the president’s signature when the lawsuits commenced. Three lawsuits filed in federal court now challenge the constitutionality of key provisions in the new health care reform law.
If a court does reach the merits in these lawsuits, it will almost certainly uphold the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under existing case law, Congress has appropriate authority under either its power to regulate interstate commerce or its power to tax and spend for the general welfare. To find otherwise would require a significant shift in Constitutional jurisprudence.
The Individual Mandate
The primary challenge in each of the lawsuits is to the “individual mandate” – the requirement in the new law that most citizens have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. There are several statutory exemptions, including for religious objections, for financial hardship, and if the least expensive plan would cost more than 8% of household income.
Unless an exemption applies, however, each citizen will be required to have health insurance, either through Medicare, Medicaid, an employer-sponsored plan, or individual purchase; premium and cost-sharing subsidies will be available for those with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level. People who are required to have insurance and do not will be taxed, with the tax rate ratcheting up over time to reach $695 per person or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater.
Commerce Clause and Tax and Spend Authority
Under our system of government, Congress may exercise only those powers that are specified by the Constitution or that are “necessary and proper” for exercising those express powers. Among the express powers is the regulation of interstate commerce.
In the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, the US Supreme Court considered a challenge to the federal government’s authority to regulate, under a Depression-era price-stabilization law, wheat grown for a farmer’s own personal use. The court concluded that this wheat production, though not for sale, did impact interstate commerce because it reduced the amount the farmer would buy and, considering the activities of similar-minded farmers, would impact the total amount grown.
Following this decision, a variety of federal laws have been upheld as authorized under this power to regulate activities that “arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.” In the Heart of Atlanta Motel case, for example, the Court held that a motel owner’s decision not to allow black people to rent rooms impacts interstate commerce and thus could be prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was grounded in Congress’ interstate commerce powers.
Health care constitutes a huge portion of our nation’s economy, currently constituting more than 17% of the GDP. Both health care and health insurance indisputably impact interstate commerce.
Two modern cases have, on a 5-4 basis, overturned federal laws as beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause. In the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the Court struck down a law mandating a gun-free zone around public schools because it was “a criminal statute that by its terms had nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise.” The court wrote that there must be a distinction between Congress’ authority and the general police powers retained by the states, between “what is truly national and what is truly local.” Utilizing a similar rationale, and also on a 5-4 basis, the Court’s 2000 decision in United States v. Morrison invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act.
In 2005, however, a 6-3 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, once again affirmed an expansive view of the Commerce Clause. The Court held that the federal government has the power to supersede state law, and to prohibit marijuana cultivation, even if grown at home for personal medical use and not for sale.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that: “We need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.” Congress could rationally conclude that medical marijuana might find its way into interstate commerce, and, as with Farmer Filburn’s wheat, that growing one’s own could impact the overall market, particularly considering the cumulative impact of numerous growers.
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia formed part of the Raich majority. Justice Scalia’s concurrence explains that this case differed from Lopez and Morrison (in which both he and Kennedy had voted to limit Congress’ authority) and that Congress may in the appropriate circumstance regulate non-economic intrastate activity.
In his Raich concurrence, Justice Scalia maintains that “the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.” Under the structure of the new health reform law, the requirement to have insurance is integral to Congress’ overall approach to regulating insurance practices and attempting to stabilize the insurance market.
The Inactivity Argument
The plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits argue, however, that the individual mandate is different because it attempts to regulate inactivity. By definition, they maintain, a person who declines to purchase health insurance is not engaging in commerce at all.
A gamble to remain uninsured does, however, impose economic costs in at least two ways. The first is when an uninsured person seeks medical treatment. Because of a federal emergency care law, state legal requirements, hospital mission obligation, and actions rooted in medical ethics, that care is sometimes mandated and is often provided. Particularly when the patient comes in through the emergency room, as is not infrequently the case, costs are substantial and often go unpaid, either because of a decision at the outset to provide “charity care” or because the patient does not pay the bill.
Findings in the new law estimate the costs of providing uncompensated care at $43 billion in 2008. While many of these costs are ultimately borne by federal, state, and local governments (in the form of subsidies to hospitals and clinics), a substantial amount is shifted to insured patients. Findings in the new law estimate that $1,000 of the cost of an employer-provided family insurance premium (out of an average of about $13,000) is attributable to uncompensated care.
The second way that being uninsured imposes economic costs is by shifting the insured risk pool. Among the approximately one in seven United States citizens who lack insurance, a significant percentage is young and healthy. By not participating in the insurance market, by gambling that they will not need expensive health care (or that if they do, someone else will pick up the tab), they skew insurance pools towards an older and sicker population, raising the premium costs. Thus, this sort of inactivity or non-participation does have an economic impact, and certainly a far more substantial economic impact than the growing of marijuana for personal, medical use.
The plaintiffs also argue that unlike with state requirements to have car insurance, one cannot avoid the requirement by declining the activity. One can avoid a state’s requirement to purchase car insurance by not driving. Unless an exemption applies, however, one cannot avoid the requirement to have health insurance, as it is attached simply to the condition of being a citizen.
There is no direct precedent for a federal law requiring purchase of a private product without the option to not engage in the triggering activity. Businesses can in theory avoid federal requirements to install (privately purchased) environmental or safety equipment by not engaging in the business. Those of us who did not want to buy a new television or sign up for cable service to maintain realistic access after the recent conversion could simply not watch television at home.
More to the point, though, the health reform law does offer a choice. Rather than purchasing health insurance (though an employer-sponsored plan or on the individual market) one can choose to pay the tax. The tax has been criticized by many, in fact, as being too low to act as an incentive. These critics raise the policy concern that some will choose to pay the tax until they get expensively sick or injured and then, based on other, inexorably linked provisions in the new law, insurance companies will be obligated to sell them a plan without pre-existing condition limits or cost adjustments.
The Supreme Court has long upheld the ability of the federal government to regulate behavior through taxation. In a 1937 case, the Court noted that “[e]very tax is in some measure regulatory. . . . But [it] is not any less a tax because it has a regulatory effect[.]” Congress’ taxation power cannot burden a fundamental right, but there is no fundamental right to be uninsured. Some have argued that if this is not really a behavior-encouraging and revenue-raising tax but more of a pure penalty, then there needs to be a separate source of authority, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The Current Court
Even if that is true, the Supreme Court, as described above, has recently reaffirmed a broad interpretation of the commerce clause. The two most recent justices to join the court replaced two dissenters, and thus if they change the calculus it would be to add support to the view that the law is constitutional. Justice Scalia, however, who concurred in the judgment in Raich, has long advocated an “originalist” or more limited view of federal power. It is conceivable that he might find that the health care reform’s individual mandate goes beyond the reach of federal powers and into the state’s police power domain.
That potentially leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. And, of course, the author of the Raich opinion has just announced that he will retire at the end of the current term. The loss of Justice Steven’s persuasive force might have an impact on the court’s analysis.
Medicaid Expansion and Insurance Exchanges
The Florida Attorney General’s lawsuit, which a dozen other attorneys general have joined, also contends that the new law encroaches on state sovereignty by creating state-based insurance exchanges and by expanding Medicaid eligibility. Both of these provisions, they argue, will impose on the states increased costs and expanded administrative burdens and, generally, will “commandeer” them into the service of the federal government.
These arguments have even less of a chance of success than do those related to the individual mandate. The states are not required to set up the exchanges. Under the terms of the law, if a state does not do so, the federal government will. To encourage states to use their regulatory and administrative powers to set up these exchanges, the law offers some funding.
Similarly, states are legally free to drop out of the Medicaid program and to forego the matching dollars that accompany it. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program in which the federal government sends financial support to state programs that, in compliance with federal guidelines, provide health care to low-income people. Wealthier states have a baseline 50/50 match, meaning that for every dollar they spend, the federal government contributes at least a dollar. The less well-off states have at least a 25/75 match.
It is true that, as a practical matter, states are heavily reliant on the matching Medicaid dollars to care for their poorest citizens and to support key safety-net health care providers. It is also true that Medicaid funding is a significant part of most states’ beleaguered budgets. The new law expands eligibility by opening the program up to all citizens and legal residents with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level. This will have the effect of adding many adults to the program. Initially, the federal government will cover all of the costs of providing care to the newly eligible, though this coverage will ratchet down to 90% over a few years.
The Supreme Court has upheld similar conditional-spending arrangements as valid exercises of Congress’ tax and spend authority. In South Dakota v. Dole, for example, the Court upheld a federal law that withheld 5% of highway funds from any state that did not raise its legal drinking age to 21. The Court did recognize in Dole that “in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’" To date, the Court has not identified such a circumstance.
It is hard to reasonably argue that the new law’s Medicaid expansion inducement reaches the point of compulsion. Congress has changed Medicaid conditions numerous times over the years and, with this new eligibility expansion, the federal government will initially assume most of the costs of the newly eligible. The exchanges present even less of a case for compulsion as they do not yet exist, and the new law provides some administrative funds for their establishment.
Procedural Hurdles
The plaintiffs also face significant hurdles before a court would get to the merits of their claims. One hurdle is ripeness. The challenged provisions do not go into effect for several years. In general, a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that might not occur; an exception might be made for a purely legal challenge to a law, such as this one, that will require significant advance groundwork. However, with Republican calls to “repeal and replace,” it is not far-fetched to wonder if the challenged provisions will survive. Such was the fate of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which, in the late 1980s, was repealed before it went into effect.
Another procedural hurdle is standing. In general, only those who are being, or imminently will be harmed by a law can challenge its constitutionality. The individual mandate, if it were in effect, would certainly harm some individuals. Its harm to the states is less clear, and it is on the states’ behalf that the plaintiffs in the Florida case have filed their complaint.
In a 2007 case, the Supreme Court did grant states standing to challenge the EPA’s inaction on greenhouse gas regulation, finding sufficient injury on the theory that the states were impacted by potential changes to their coastlines and to overall environmental wellbeing. Drawing on this 5-4 decision, perhaps the states could make a not-yet-articulated argument having to do with diverted state tax revenue and population wellbeing, but this seems a stretch. The separate complaint filed by the Virginia attorney general is based on that state’s recent enactment of a law purporting to nullify the individual mandate as to Virginia residents, and the defense of that law perhaps provides a toe-hold into standing. The Thomas More Law Center plaintiffs do include four individual citizens. And of course, if the other complaints survive the ripeness and other challenges, individuals might join as plaintiffs.
Nonetheless, based on decades of Supreme Court case law, the substantive challenges to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are unlikely to succeed. They are likely, though, to continue to inspire discussions within the legal community and within the general public about the role of government, the nature of health care, and the obligations of citizens. Perhaps that, in itself, is a valuable outcome.
Sallie Sanford is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Washington.
April 21, 2010
--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/
Thursday, April 15, 2010
'Steven Seagal Lawman' taping canceled; sheriff invites accuser to file report | - NOLA.com
This content is thanks to:
'Steven Seagal Lawman' taping canceled; sheriff invites accuser to file report
By Michelle Hunter, The Times-Picayune
| Sheriff Newell Normand press confence about Steven Seagal |
April 14, 2010, 5:11PM
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Phish 3D - In Theaters April 30th - Even where I live!
PHISH 3D - IN THEATERS APRIL 30TH from Phish on Vimeo.
List of cities showing Phish 3D here.
Who's comin' with me?
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care passed
This is the text of an email sent by President Barack Obama
For the first time in our nation's history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.
Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:
Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.
Every American will be covered under the toughest patient protections in history. Arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, and discrimination against pre-existing conditions will now be gone forever.
And we'll finally start reducing the cost of care -- creating millions of jobs, preventing families and businesses from plunging into bankruptcy, and removing over a trillion dollars of debt from the backs of our children.
But the victory that matters most tonight goes beyond the laws and far past the numbers.
It is the peace of mind enjoyed by every American, no longer one injury or illness away from catastrophe.
It is the workers and entrepreneurs who are now freed to pursue their slice of the American dream without fear of losing coverage or facing a crippling bill.
And it is the immeasurable joy of families in every part of this great nation, living happier, healthier lives together because they can finally receive the vital care they need.
This is what change looks like.
My gratitude tonight is profound. I am thankful for those in past generations whose heroic efforts brought this great goal within reach for our times. I am thankful for the members of Congress whose months of effort and brave votes made it possible to take this final step. But most of all, I am thankful for you.
This day is not the end of this journey. Much hard work remains, and we have a solemn responsibility to do it right. But we can face that work together with the confidence of those who have moved mountains.
Our journey began three years ago, driven by a shared belief that fundamental change is indeed still possible. We have worked hard together every day since to deliver on that belief.
We have shared moments of tremendous hope, and we've faced setbacks and doubt. We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.
Tonight, thanks to your mighty efforts, the answer is indisputable: Yes we can.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
For the first time in our nation's history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.
Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:
Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.
Every American will be covered under the toughest patient protections in history. Arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, and discrimination against pre-existing conditions will now be gone forever.
And we'll finally start reducing the cost of care -- creating millions of jobs, preventing families and businesses from plunging into bankruptcy, and removing over a trillion dollars of debt from the backs of our children.
But the victory that matters most tonight goes beyond the laws and far past the numbers.
It is the peace of mind enjoyed by every American, no longer one injury or illness away from catastrophe.
It is the workers and entrepreneurs who are now freed to pursue their slice of the American dream without fear of losing coverage or facing a crippling bill.
And it is the immeasurable joy of families in every part of this great nation, living happier, healthier lives together because they can finally receive the vital care they need.
This is what change looks like.
My gratitude tonight is profound. I am thankful for those in past generations whose heroic efforts brought this great goal within reach for our times. I am thankful for the members of Congress whose months of effort and brave votes made it possible to take this final step. But most of all, I am thankful for you.
This day is not the end of this journey. Much hard work remains, and we have a solemn responsibility to do it right. But we can face that work together with the confidence of those who have moved mountains.
Our journey began three years ago, driven by a shared belief that fundamental change is indeed still possible. We have worked hard together every day since to deliver on that belief.
We have shared moments of tremendous hope, and we've faced setbacks and doubt. We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right -- and actually create the change we believe in.
Tonight, thanks to your mighty efforts, the answer is indisputable: Yes we can.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports: New Scholarly Impact Study Forthcoming
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports: New Scholarly Impact Study Forthcoming: "New Scholarly Impact Study Forthcoming"
So, come on, where is LSU? Who else in the US contributes to scholarly civil law articles, outside of Tulane?
So, come on, where is LSU? Who else in the US contributes to scholarly civil law articles, outside of Tulane?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Glenn Beck attacked me, and YOU!
CNNBC | Breaking News, Weather, Sports, Tech, Opinions, and Multimedia | By You, For You, And About You: "http://beck.cnnbcvideo.com/?b=b|1145861-y1JkZvx&fv=b|1145265-OwdDVmx&rc=moveon"
Here is mine:
Here is mine:
Thursday, March 11, 2010
2 for 1: Pass healthcare and ship Rush Limbaugh out of the country
Here's a brief letter you can send to your email circle. Please send it along right away, but please only contact people who know you personally. Spam hurts our campaign.
Click here to open a new e-mail and invite your friends, family and colleagues to get involved:
Invite friends and colleagues.
Click here to open a new e-mail and invite your friends, family and colleagues to get involved:
Invite friends and colleagues.
- Or, you can cut and paste the text below into an email message:
- Subject: Want to help me get Rush Limbaugh to move far away?
Hi,
Rush Limbaugh has said he'll leave the country if we pass health care reform. That's good enough for me. Want to help me get this great 2 for 1 deal? Help Americans who are suffering and get rid of a Republican blowhard?
I signed a petition urging Congress to pass health care so we can get rid of Rush Limbaugh. Can you join me at the link below?
http://pol.moveon.org/twoforone/?r_by=-10456300-EWTOHOx&rc=paste
Thanks!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Zombie Playing Bluegrass
I have been going through some old videos and pictures recently, and came across a few gems. New Orleans is an amazing place for people watching. See below: Zombie playing banjo one Halloween...
Also, here is a Giant gerbil, or perhaps a mouse, playing hopscotch.
I know, the resolution could be better, but this is the best you can do with a camera phone at night.
Also, here is a Giant gerbil, or perhaps a mouse, playing hopscotch.
I know, the resolution could be better, but this is the best you can do with a camera phone at night.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Geeky theories & ideas about Lost Season 6
I posed these comments on http://scifiwire.com/2010/02/week-1-lost-questions-ans.php#comments in response to 100 questions still unanswered about Lost after the airing of the first episode of Season 6 this week. Read away.
I have a few theories, a few other ideas, and some gloating.
First, some new questions: If the island is under water, etc., and all those things that happened after the bomb (whenever it occurred but for the sake of argument lets say 1977) like the building of the hatch and pressing the button (not to mention the arrival of Rousseau, etc) never happened in the island-under-water reality. So that dude in the nut-house with Hurley never heard the numbers. So Hurley could never have heard the numbers. SO WHY WAS HURLEY IN AUSTRALIA? I thought he was there recording the commercial, but since people already saw the commercial and recognized Hurley, that is doubtful.
Another question: What changed so that Boone didn't bring Shannon back with him?
Now the gloating: I knew the smoke monster was Alex and Locke (and Christian), because Alex told Ben to do whatever Locke said, etc. etc... he has obviously been manipulating the situation for a very very long time. It was also Smoke-Locke who told Richard to tell real Locke that he would have to die, so that Smoke-Locke could take his form.
This did lead me to believe - as recently as a few minutes ago, and probably still now, that the comment above by "strider47" must be on point. "How come no one ever brings up the fact that this whole incident is and endlessly repeating time loop. One that has been going on and on..."
However, I had an idea while I was watching, which I believe solves all the problems, and (more importantly) keeps the structure of the series - in its entirety - balanced. Here it goes:
Ok, The first three seasons were all flashbacks, and when season three ended with a flash-forward, then continued on with flash-forwards, I figured this would continue until the times met up. When the 6 returned to the Island, the flash forwards, and correct me if I'm wrong, stopped. However, the time shifts seem to have compensated for this. Anyway, the scenes where everyone is ok on the plane, I believe, are still flash-forwards. And the bomb worked, as in it blew up, but that was what happened anyway, I think. Time will reset, however... just not yet. There must be some other event that has to happen in order for the plane to not crash, for the EM disturbance to go away, etc. Because it is a time loop, that thing can happen in the "present" island where the survivors are now, or there can be another time shift where the event occurs in the past, or anything else under the sun. The key is, the time will be reset before the last episode. The event to reset the time simply has not happened yet.
SO - the storyline where everyone lives - is still a flash forward. It is a flash forward because the survivors in 2007 have yet to do whatever it is that must happen in order for the island to sink before 2004 so that the plane can fly over unharmed.
Either that, or Jack is dead, and we are seeing Jack's personal heaven, or some "life flash before he dies" thing; Sawyer did say he would kill Jack, and even though he took it back, that sounds like classic foreshadowing to me. Sawyer just might kill Jack.
More theories: Sayid is not Jacob, he is whatever Ben became with the "consequences" of when he was in the temple. Whatever it was, it made Ben a tool of the smoke monster, which I believe is why Jacob never contacted Ben before. So, since Hurley is the only one who can see Jacob - Hurley is the new leader of the others.
The over-arching theme has been debated. I think it is clear now, that the theme is "free will vs not-free will." Before, I assumed it was "free will vs. destiny" but it has become clear that there is no "destiny" on the island, only events planned out and manipulated by the Smoke Monster.
Continuing, this also responds to "azsinzz"'s comment about Widmore working for Smoke Monster once he got off the island. I disagree. Jacob is obviously pro-free-will, and Smoke Monster is not. Jacob is free to leave the island, Smoke Monster is not. Jacob has always been free to leave the island. Who is the only other person that we know of who ever left the island before Dharma showed up? Charles Widmore, to marry Penny's mom and father her. Who could have possibly taken him? There was no sub. It must have been Jacob, however he did it. Also, when Ben excommunicates Widmore, Widmore tells Ben that he has a choice here, he doesn't have to banish him. Almost (i'm guessing here because I haven't checked but it sounds right) the same language Jacob used before Ben killed him.
SO, I think Sayid is probably now susceptible by manipulation by the Smoke Monster like Ben was the entire time he was leader. It was also Ben who chose to move the Others into the barracks after the purge, right? Why would he do that? To be protected by the sonic fence. The others lived all together outside the sonic fence, however and the Smoke Monster, we assume, was out there too. Ben probably was sick of the Smoke Monster in whatever incarnation he chose to be in, so he moved everyone into the protection of the fence. Now that I think about it, the smoke monster must have been taking the form of Ben's mom, right? It did it at least once, we know... Thats enough back to work.
I have a few theories, a few other ideas, and some gloating.
First, some new questions: If the island is under water, etc., and all those things that happened after the bomb (whenever it occurred but for the sake of argument lets say 1977) like the building of the hatch and pressing the button (not to mention the arrival of Rousseau, etc) never happened in the island-under-water reality. So that dude in the nut-house with Hurley never heard the numbers. So Hurley could never have heard the numbers. SO WHY WAS HURLEY IN AUSTRALIA? I thought he was there recording the commercial, but since people already saw the commercial and recognized Hurley, that is doubtful.
Another question: What changed so that Boone didn't bring Shannon back with him?
Now the gloating: I knew the smoke monster was Alex and Locke (and Christian), because Alex told Ben to do whatever Locke said, etc. etc... he has obviously been manipulating the situation for a very very long time. It was also Smoke-Locke who told Richard to tell real Locke that he would have to die, so that Smoke-Locke could take his form.
This did lead me to believe - as recently as a few minutes ago, and probably still now, that the comment above by "strider47" must be on point. "How come no one ever brings up the fact that this whole incident is and endlessly repeating time loop. One that has been going on and on..."
However, I had an idea while I was watching, which I believe solves all the problems, and (more importantly) keeps the structure of the series - in its entirety - balanced. Here it goes:
Ok, The first three seasons were all flashbacks, and when season three ended with a flash-forward, then continued on with flash-forwards, I figured this would continue until the times met up. When the 6 returned to the Island, the flash forwards, and correct me if I'm wrong, stopped. However, the time shifts seem to have compensated for this. Anyway, the scenes where everyone is ok on the plane, I believe, are still flash-forwards. And the bomb worked, as in it blew up, but that was what happened anyway, I think. Time will reset, however... just not yet. There must be some other event that has to happen in order for the plane to not crash, for the EM disturbance to go away, etc. Because it is a time loop, that thing can happen in the "present" island where the survivors are now, or there can be another time shift where the event occurs in the past, or anything else under the sun. The key is, the time will be reset before the last episode. The event to reset the time simply has not happened yet.
SO - the storyline where everyone lives - is still a flash forward. It is a flash forward because the survivors in 2007 have yet to do whatever it is that must happen in order for the island to sink before 2004 so that the plane can fly over unharmed.
Either that, or Jack is dead, and we are seeing Jack's personal heaven, or some "life flash before he dies" thing; Sawyer did say he would kill Jack, and even though he took it back, that sounds like classic foreshadowing to me. Sawyer just might kill Jack.
More theories: Sayid is not Jacob, he is whatever Ben became with the "consequences" of when he was in the temple. Whatever it was, it made Ben a tool of the smoke monster, which I believe is why Jacob never contacted Ben before. So, since Hurley is the only one who can see Jacob - Hurley is the new leader of the others.
The over-arching theme has been debated. I think it is clear now, that the theme is "free will vs not-free will." Before, I assumed it was "free will vs. destiny" but it has become clear that there is no "destiny" on the island, only events planned out and manipulated by the Smoke Monster.
Continuing, this also responds to "azsinzz"'s comment about Widmore working for Smoke Monster once he got off the island. I disagree. Jacob is obviously pro-free-will, and Smoke Monster is not. Jacob is free to leave the island, Smoke Monster is not. Jacob has always been free to leave the island. Who is the only other person that we know of who ever left the island before Dharma showed up? Charles Widmore, to marry Penny's mom and father her. Who could have possibly taken him? There was no sub. It must have been Jacob, however he did it. Also, when Ben excommunicates Widmore, Widmore tells Ben that he has a choice here, he doesn't have to banish him. Almost (i'm guessing here because I haven't checked but it sounds right) the same language Jacob used before Ben killed him.
SO, I think Sayid is probably now susceptible by manipulation by the Smoke Monster like Ben was the entire time he was leader. It was also Ben who chose to move the Others into the barracks after the purge, right? Why would he do that? To be protected by the sonic fence. The others lived all together outside the sonic fence, however and the Smoke Monster, we assume, was out there too. Ben probably was sick of the Smoke Monster in whatever incarnation he chose to be in, so he moved everyone into the protection of the fence. Now that I think about it, the smoke monster must have been taking the form of Ben's mom, right? It did it at least once, we know... Thats enough back to work.
Best Saints Band Costume Ever
Picture by Judy Cooper, "Juanita", 2007. From the series "New Orleans Sunday"
I received this picture in an email from the LSU museum, advertising free admission to anyone who shows up on Saturday wearing Black & Gold. So, FYI...
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Are the Bible's Stories True? Archaeology's Evidence
Are the Bible's Stories True? Archaeology's Evidence
This is an incredible article. Reading about ancient civilizations, what may be true, what may not be, is always eye-opening. The most incredible part, however, is always how the many differences - and similarities between our civilization today and that of the Middle East 4000 years ago.
This is an incredible article. Reading about ancient civilizations, what may be true, what may not be, is always eye-opening. The most incredible part, however, is always how the many differences - and similarities between our civilization today and that of the Middle East 4000 years ago.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Download the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BBC Radio Show - mp3s
Download this classic radio play. The best example of subtle British humor I've ever heard. Download The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy By Douglas Adams (R.I.P.)
Original BBC Radio Broadcast MP3s
Primary Phase - Episode 00 [Intro] (1.16mb)
Primary Phase - Episode 01 (13.0mb)
Primary Phase - Episode 02 (12.9mb)
Primary Phase - Episode 03 (12.7mb)
Primary Phase - Episode 04 (13.4mb)
Primary Phase - Episode 05 (13.5mb)
Primary Phase - Episode 06 (14.0mb)
Secondary Phase - Episode 07 (13.6mb)
Secondary Phase - Episode 08 (13.4mb)
Secondary Phase - Episode 09 (13.5mb)
Secondary Phase - Episode 10 (13.4mb)
Secondary Phase - Episode 11 (13.6mb)
Secondary Phase - Episode 12 (12.7mb)
Tertiary Phase - Episode 00 [Intro] (2.47mb)
Tertiary Phase - Episode 13 (13.6mb)
Tertiary Phase - Episode 14 (14.2mb)
Tertiary Phase - Episode 15 (16.3mb)
Tertiary Phase - Episode 16 (14.2mb)
Tertiary Phase - Episode 17 (13.8mb)
Tertiary Phase - Episode 18 (15.8mb)
Quandary Phase - Episode 19 (14.9mb)
Quandary Phase - Episode 20 (15.8mb)
Quandary Phase - Episode 21 (18.7mb)
Quandary Phase - Episode 22 (16.1mb)
Quintessential Phase - Episode 23 (17.0mb)
Quintessential Phase - Episode 24 (16.2mb)
Quintessential Phase - Episode 25 (15.3mb)
Quintessential Phase - Episode 26 (18.0mb)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Who Dat Sey Dey Own Dat Chant?
The NFL claim to own the phrase "Who Dat?" The cheer for the New Orleans Saints, who are scheduled to crush the Indianapolis Colts and Louisianian exile Peyton Manning at the Superbowl in Miami just over a week from now, is as follows:
"Who dat? Who dat? Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints? Who dat? Who dat?"
I first learned of this from Abovethelaw.com; click to read that article. I definitely second the opinions in that article.
While the black-and-gold elite, and the NFL for that matter, have every right to protect what is theirs, the phrase has been around much, much longer than the Saints. I have pasted an article from Wikipedia, updated today with the new information about the cease and desist letters sent by the NFL to local retailers.
Here is the Wikipedia Entry:
I first learned of this from Abovethelaw.com; click to read that article. I definitely second the opinions in that article.
While the black-and-gold elite, and the NFL for that matter, have every right to protect what is theirs, the phrase has been around much, much longer than the Saints. I have pasted an article from Wikipedia, updated today with the new information about the cease and desist letters sent by the NFL to local retailers.
Here is the Wikipedia Entry:
Origins
The chant of "Who Dat?" originated in minstrel shows and vaudeville acts of the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was then taken up by jazz and big band performers in the 1920s and 30s.
The first reference to "Who Dat?" can be found in the 19th Century. A featured song in E.E. Rice's "Summer Nights" is the song "Who Dat Say Chicken In dis Crowd"
, with lyrics by poet Paul Laurence Dunbar.[1] A common tag line in the days of Negro minstrel shows was: "Who dat?" answered by "Who dat say who dat?" Many different blackfaced gags played off that opening. Vaudeville performer Mantan Moreland was known for the routine.[1] Another example is "Swing Wedding," a rarely shown 1930s Harmon-Ising cartoon musical, which caricatured Fats Waller, Cab Calloway, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Ethel Waters, and the Mills Brothers as frogs in a swamp performing minstrel show jokes and jazz tunes. The frogs repeatedly used the phrase "who dat?"In the swing era, "who dat" chants back and forth between the band and the band leader or between the audience and the band were extemporaneous. That is, there was no one specific set of words except for the two magic ones.
"Who Dat?" Lyrics from 1937:
Who dat up there who’s dat down there
Who dat up there who dat well down there
Who’s dat up there, sayin’ who’s dat down there
When I see you up there well who’s dat down thereWho dat inside who’s dat outside
Who’s dat inside who dat well outside
Who’s dat inside, singin’ who’s dat outside
When I see up there well who’s dat out thereButton up your lip there big boy
Stop answerin’ back
Give you a tip there big boy
Announce yourself jackWho dat up there who’s dat down there
Who dat up there who dat, well down there
Who’s dat up there, singin’ who’s dat down there
When I see you up there you bum
Well who’s dat down thereWho dat
Staged minstrel skits had frightened black people saying "who dat" when they encountered a ghost, or someone imitating a ghost. Then, the "who dat"..."who dat say who dat"...skit would play itself out. This skit was done frequently in short reels from the 1930s - 1950s and in some early TV shows too. Even the Marx Brothers had a "who dat" routine, which they included in their film A Day at the Races.[1] Often, a ghost was called a "who dat." An animated character, now banished to the archives as being racist, MGM's Bosko had such an encounter in a toon called "Lil Ol Bosko in Bagdad" in 1938.
"Who Dat?" became a familiar joke with soldiers during World War II.
Back in WWII, US fighter squadron pilots would often fly under radio silence. But things get lonely up there in the cockpit, so after a while there'd be a crackle of static as someone keyed his mike. Then a disembodied voice would reply, "Who dat?" An answer would come, "Who dat say who dat?" And another, "Who dat say who dat say who dat?" After a few rounds of this, the squadron commander would grab his microphone and yell, "Cut it out, you guys!" A few moments of silence. Then... "Who dat?"[cite this quote]
The "Who Dat?" cheer
"Who Dat" became part of a chant for fans cheering on their favorite team. It has been debated exactly where it started, but some claim it began with Southern University fans either in the late 1960s or early 1970s and went "Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Jags" - Southern University being nicknamed the Jaguars.[2] Another claim is that around the same time it began at St. Augustine High School, a historically African-American all boys Catholic high school in New Orleans, and then spread to the New Orleans Public Schools. Another claim is that the cheer originated at Patterson High School in Patterson, Louisiana (home of Saints running back Dalton Hilliard).[1] In the late 70's fans at Louisiana State University picked up on the cheer. By 1983, the New Orleans Saints organization officially adopted it during the tenure of coach Bum Phillips, and Aaron Neville (along with local musicians Sal and Steve Monistere and Carlo Nuccio) recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" that incorporated the chant (performed by a group of Saints players) that became a major local hit, due in part to the support of sportscaster Ron Swoboda and the fact that Saints fans had been using the chant already.[1]
In 1981, the Cincinnati Bengals fans and players had started with their similar "Who Dey" cheer.[3] It was also adopted by wrestling fans of the Junkyard Dog, who wrestled locally in the Mid South Wrestling area in the early to mid 1980s.[citation needed]
After the Saints won the 2009 NFC Championship on January 24, 2010, against the Minnesota Vikings in the Superdome, fans from all across New Orleans, including fans who were exiting the game, started a Mardi Gras style "Who Dat" on Bourbon Street with modified lyrics, chanting, "Who Dat, Who Dat, Who Dat in the Super Bowl!" This of course being because the New Orleans Saints were advancing to the Super Bowl for the first time ever in their (at the time) 43 year history.[4][5]
Who Dat Nation
In recent years the phrase "Who Dat Nation" has become a popular term for the community of Saints fans.[6][7] According to Bobby Hebert, formerly a Saints quarterback and currently a sports commentator in New Orleans, the term "Who Dat Nation" originated after a highly anticipated 2006 game between the Saints and the favored Dallas Cowboys, which the Saints won; after the game, listeners from a wide geographic range called in to Hebert's radio show on WWL (AM), and Hebert commented, "Man, there's a whole Who Dat Nation out there."[8]
Ownership Controversy
In January of 2010, the NFL sent cease and desist letters to several Louisiana t-shirt shop owners ordering them to cease producing t-shirts bearing the phrase "Who dat". The NFL claimed to own the trademark to the term "Who dat". (The Monisteres were also reported to claim rights in the phrase.) The NFL also claimed that unlicensed t-shirts bearing the phrase would cause confusion among fans of the Saints about the official status of the merchandise.[9]
Recorded versions
(A play list of over 50 "Who Dat" and "New Orleans Saints songs"
can be heard here
- Who Dat? - Aaron Neville
- Who Dat - Royal Crown Revue
- Who Dat? - JV (Jimmie Vestal) Two different versions recorded
- Who Dat 2006 - Ghost & Birdfinger
- Are You A Who Dat? - Mike Grothues
- Dat "Who Dat" Jazz - Olympia Brass Band
- A Who Dat Christmas - Who Dat Children's Choir
- Who Let the Dogs Out (Who Dat remix) - Baha Men/Clear Channel New Orleans
- Who Dat is coming out- Keith Reagan
- Who Dat Fever - [Weathered - [1]
In hip hop
"Who Dat" is the name of the 4th single off of The Recession by Young Jeezy. They say who dat?
A variation of the "Who dat" chant was also used in the Lil' Wayne single "A Milli". Who dat say they gon beat Lil Wayne?
JT Money has a 1999 single called "Who Dat." The song was a hit, but was likely not intended to have any relation to the Saints or Vaudeville.
"Who dat" is also used in the song "Holla Back" by New Orleans-based rapper Juvenile "They want a pimp to give them some money, but I don't do that. But baby I'm a Saints fan that's why I say who dat."
References
- ^ a b c d e Dave Walker, "'Who dat?' popularized by New Orleans Saints fans when 'everybody was looking for the sign'"
, Times-Picayune, January 12, 2010, pp. A1, A10 (Saint Tammany Edition).- ^ George Morris, "Saints cheer predates team; not much more history known"
, The Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.), December 30, 2009.- ^ "Building tradition"
, AP, August 22, 2003.- ^ Rob Longley (25 January, 2010). "Saints bound for first Super Bowl"
. Toronto Sun. http://www.torontosun.com/sports/football/2010/01/24/12595326.html#/sports/columnists/rob_longley/2010/01/24/pf-12597771.html. Retrieved 2010-01-25.- ^ "Who date nation erupts with joy"
. http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/01/who_dat_nation_erupts_with_joy.html. Retrieved 2010-01-25.- ^ "Who Dat Nation"
, Times-Picayune, January 21, 2007.- ^ Blair Soden, "Saints Praying, and Playing, for the Super Bowl"
, ABC News, January 20, 2007.- ^ "Saints Must Protect the Football"
, ESPN interview with Bobby Hebert, November 25, 2009 (at 2:35).- ^ Katie Moore, "NFL orders shops to stop selling 'Who Dat' gear
, WWL-TV, January 27, 2010.External links
- Toni Monkovic, "Who Dey vs. Who Dat"
, New York Times, December 14, 2006.
Bibliographic details for "Who Dat?"
- Page name: Who Dat?
- Author: Wikipedia contributors
- Publisher: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
- Date of last revision: 28 January 2010 15:53 UTC
- Date retrieved: 28 January 2010 23:55 UTC
- Permanent link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Who_Dat%3F&oldid=340541929
- Primary contributors: Revision history statistics
- Page Version ID: 340541929
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
