Hernani Perpetuo is the latest addition to the UFC’s welterweight division.
Two months after winning the Shooto world title with a unanimous decision victory over MMA veteran Tommy Depret at Shooto Brazil 42, Perpetuo (17-3, 1 no-contest), a Nova Uniao product, signed a deal with the UFC and is expected to make his Octagon debut early 2014.
"I’ve signed a contract with the UFC today," Perpetuo told MMAFighting.com on Thursday, confirming an initial report by Combate.
"I already expected to sign with a major promotion after I won the Shooto title, and I’m looking forward my first fight."
Perpetuo’s five-round war with Depret was the ninth bout of his undefeated streak, which includes two knockouts and one submission.
"I have to win my first fight and then climb the rankings step by step," he said. "The Shooto title was very important to open doors and get me in the UFC."
Watch the first trailer of Jason Reitman’s ‘Labor Day,’ a drama starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin as characters who find themselves in an intriguing and seemingly improbable love relationship. ‘Labor Day’ was written and directed by Jason Reitman (‘Thank You for Smoking,’ Up in the Air’). It is a screen adaptation of the critically acclaimed literary novel of the same title by Joyce Maynard, who is also the author of the memoir, ‘At Home in the World,’ which revealed her relationship with the late J.D. Salinger. As with the novel, the movie begins in the year 1987 on Labor Day weekend. Notably deglamorized, the Oscar-winning actress Kate Winslet portrays Adele Wheeler, a depressed and reclusive divorced single mother of a 13-year-old son, Henry, who is portrayed by Gattlin Griffith. Per chance while out on a rare shopping trip, Adele and Henry meet up with a stranger, Frank Chanbers, who is portrayed by Josh Brolin. With more than a bit of hesitation, she gives the man, who is ragged looking and bleeding from his forehead, a ride home. After she has taken him in to stay in the house, he reveals that he is both a convicted murderer and a [...]Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RightCelebrity/~3/MVvK2coZrAQ/ Tags: nobel peace prizenew england patriotsjames spaderWhat Time Does Ios 7 Come OutManny Diaz
BOSTON (AP) — The Boston Red Sox didn't just build a World Series champion in 2013.
They also created a blueprint for the team's next title.
The Red Sox took advantage of last August's salary purge to add middle-market free agents like Mike Napoli, Jonny Gomes, Shane Victorino and Koji Uehara — all key contributors to the World Series championship. As he looks to this offseason, general manager Ben Cherington will need to replace some big parts of the '13 team — including center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury — without making the free agent mistakes of the past.
"To be in this position, given where we've come from, reflecting back a year ago at this time, there's been a lot that's happened in 13 months," manager John Farrell said after the game.
"Ben Cherington deserves all the credit in the world for what he has done for this roster. To come in and see the energy and the commitment that the (players) had, the buying into a team concept every single day, and the one thing that really stands out more than anything is just their overall will to win. And that was no more evident than in this entire postseason."
The Red Sox were still smarting from their 2011 collapse when they traded Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford, Adrian Gonzalez and more than $250 million in future salaries to the Los Angeles Dodgers last August. Although the team finished in last place, with the franchise's worst record in almost half a century, the rebuilding had already begun.
Instead of showering money on the biggest names to replace the high-priced talent that had departed, Cherington opted to take smaller risks on mid-range players.
It paid off with Uehara, the team's third or fourth choice as closer, winning the AL championship series MVP and closing out the last three wins in the World Series. It paid off with Victorino, who hit a game-winning grand slam in the ALCS and a three-run double in the Series clincher. And it paid off with Napoli, who had a three-run double in Game 1, and Gomes, whose three-run homer won Game 4.
"I'm a believer," Gomes said, adding that he knew the team had potential when he first reported to spring training. "As soon as we went to Fort Myers, (I knew) the movie's already been written, all we had to do was press play. And this is what happened."
But now it's time for the sequel.
Ellsbury is a free agent and agent Scott Boras is expected to demand a nine-figure contract. Napoli is also unsigned for next year, along with shortstop Stephen Drew and catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia. The team will almost certainly prevent pitcher Jon Lester from becoming a free agent by picking up his $13 million option.
Drew could be replaced at shortstop by prospect Xander Bogaerts, who played his way onto the postseason roster. David Ross wound up as the primary catcher by the end of the Series, but if Saltalamacchia leaves the Red Sox would be looking for a replacement. Jackie Bradley Jr. and Daniel Nava are available to join Gomes and Victorino in the outfield.
Other free agents include onetime closer Joel Hanrahan, who was acquired in a trade from Pittsburgh but missed most of the season recovering from Tommy John surgery. Left-handed reliever Matt Thornton and shortstop John McDonald, who weren't on the postseason roster, are also eligible to become free agents.
Farrell doesn't know how the team will replace those who leave.
But he is hoping the improved clubhouse atmosphere will help the team sign any free agents they target.
"I think maybe what's gone on around the game or what's happened here probably is taken note around the league," Farrell said before the 6-1 victory over the St. Louis Cardinals in Game 6.
"And I think, in the eyes of some, Boston might present some specific challenges that might be intimidating for certain players. But I would hope what they're witnessing would certainly become a place of destination for a number of guys that might have a choice."
New methods improve quagga and zebra mussel identification
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
31-Oct-2013
[
| E-mail
]
Share
Contact: Peter Soeth psoeth@usbr.gov 303-445-3615 Bureau of Reclamation
Reports identify new sampling and testing methods that improve accuracy in the detection of quagga and zebra mussels and outline procedures used to test for them
DENVER - The earliest possible detection of quagga and zebra mussels has long been a goal of biologists seeking to discover their presence in water bodies. The Bureau of Reclamation's Detection Laboratory has released two reports identifying a new sampling method to improve the accuracy of quagga and zebra mussel detection while still at the microscopic larval stage.
The reports also outline the processes and procedures used to identify invasive mussels through DNA testing.
"Improving the accuracy of testing provides Reclamation and its partners better information about the presence of quagga and zebra mussels in water bodies where our facilities are located," laboratory manager Denise Hosler said. "These sampling procedures allow for the improved detection when the mussels are in their larval stage."
For early detection, Reclamation searches samples from reservoirs, lakes, canals and other water bodies for the microscopic larval form of quagga and zebra mussels. Because they are so small, multiple testing methods are used, including cross-polarized light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and PCR testing of the DNA of larvae in the water sample.
"Early detection of mussel larvae does not mean that the water body will necessarily become infested," Reclamation's Director of Research and Development Curt Brown said. "Early detection provides a warning for managers that a water body is being exposed to mussels through some pathway, so they can consider additional means to prevent further introduction."
###
Reclamation's Detection Laboratory is located in the Technical Service Center in Denver. It specializes in invasive mussels and also identifies species through taxonomic and genetic testing. It was awarded the Colorado Governor's Award for High Impact Research in 2012 for its work advancing the early detection of invasive quagga and zebra mussels.
To download the reports or learn more about Reclamation's Invasive Mussel Program, please visit http://www.usbr.gov/mussels.
Please remember to clean, drain and dry your watercraft when you are moving it between bodies of water.
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
New methods improve quagga and zebra mussel identification
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
31-Oct-2013
[
| E-mail
]
Share
Contact: Peter Soeth psoeth@usbr.gov 303-445-3615 Bureau of Reclamation
Reports identify new sampling and testing methods that improve accuracy in the detection of quagga and zebra mussels and outline procedures used to test for them
DENVER - The earliest possible detection of quagga and zebra mussels has long been a goal of biologists seeking to discover their presence in water bodies. The Bureau of Reclamation's Detection Laboratory has released two reports identifying a new sampling method to improve the accuracy of quagga and zebra mussel detection while still at the microscopic larval stage.
The reports also outline the processes and procedures used to identify invasive mussels through DNA testing.
"Improving the accuracy of testing provides Reclamation and its partners better information about the presence of quagga and zebra mussels in water bodies where our facilities are located," laboratory manager Denise Hosler said. "These sampling procedures allow for the improved detection when the mussels are in their larval stage."
For early detection, Reclamation searches samples from reservoirs, lakes, canals and other water bodies for the microscopic larval form of quagga and zebra mussels. Because they are so small, multiple testing methods are used, including cross-polarized light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and PCR testing of the DNA of larvae in the water sample.
"Early detection of mussel larvae does not mean that the water body will necessarily become infested," Reclamation's Director of Research and Development Curt Brown said. "Early detection provides a warning for managers that a water body is being exposed to mussels through some pathway, so they can consider additional means to prevent further introduction."
###
Reclamation's Detection Laboratory is located in the Technical Service Center in Denver. It specializes in invasive mussels and also identifies species through taxonomic and genetic testing. It was awarded the Colorado Governor's Award for High Impact Research in 2012 for its work advancing the early detection of invasive quagga and zebra mussels.
To download the reports or learn more about Reclamation's Invasive Mussel Program, please visit http://www.usbr.gov/mussels.
Please remember to clean, drain and dry your watercraft when you are moving it between bodies of water.
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's ruling that found the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy was discriminatory and took the unusual step of removing her from the case, saying interviews she gave during the trial called her impartiality into question.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the rulings by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.
The judge ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in how it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people. The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and the training program associated with it.
During arguments, lawyers in the case said the police department hasn't had to do anything except meet with a monitor since the judge's decision. But the city said police officers are afraid to stop and frisk people now and the number of stop-and-frisks has dropped dramatically.
The three-judge appeals panel, which heard arguments on the requested stay on Tuesday, noted that the case might be affected in a major way by next week's mayoral election.
Democratic candidate Bill de Blasio, who's leading in polls, has sharply criticized and promised to reform the NYPD's stop-and-frisk technique, saying it unfairly targets minorities. He said he was "extremely disappointed" in Thursday's decision.
The appeals court said the judge needed to be removed because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges in part by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality. It noted she had given a series of media interviews and public statements responding to criticism of the court. In a footnote, it cited interviews with the New York Law Journal, The Associated Press and The New Yorker magazine.
The judge said Thursday that quotes from her written opinions gave the appearance she had commented on the case in interviews. But she said a careful reading of each interview will reveal no such comments were made.
The 2nd Circuit said cases challenging stop-and-frisk policies will be assigned to a different judge chosen randomly. It said the new presiding judge shall stay all proceedings pending further rulings by it.
After a 10-week civil trial that ended in the spring, Scheindlin ruled that police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with the stop-and-frisk program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented plaintiffs in the case, said it was dismayed that the appeals court delayed "the long-overdue process to remedy the NYPD's unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices" and was shocked that it "cast aspersions" on the judge's professional conduct and reassigned the case.
The city said it was pleased with the federal appeals court ruling. City lawyer Michael Cardozo said it allows for a fresh and independent look at the issue.
Stop-and-frisk, which has been criticized by civil rights advocates, has been around for decades, but recorded stops increased dramatically under Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four men, all minorities, and became a class action case.
About 5 million stops have been made in New York in the past decade, with frisks occurring about half the time. To make a stop, police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred, a standard lower than the probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 10 percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons are found about 2 percent of the time.
Supporters of changes to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program say the changes will end unfair practices, will mold a more trusted police force and can affect how other police departments use the policy. Opponents say the changes will lower police morale but not crime.
The judge noted she wasn't putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision established new limits on federal authority, IU paper says
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
31-Oct-2013
[
| E-mail
]
Share
Contact: George Vlahakis vlahakis@iu.edu 812-855-0846 Indiana University
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A new paper by an Indiana University professor sheds new light on the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, which many critics said threatens state sovereignty and individual liberties.
The paper comes at a time when problems with the act's implementation, particularly the creation of state health care exchanges, highlight the limits of federal capabilities and the importance of state cooperation in the success of domestic government programs.
In an article in Business Horizons, a journal published by IU's Kelley School of Business, Tim Lemper argues that the court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius actually established new limits on the power of the federal government.
"The court was heavily criticized for betraying the principles of federalism and limited government in the U.S. Constitution," Lemper said. "In reality, the court's decision placed groundbreaking limits on Congress' power to regulate commerce and use federal funds to pressure states into doing its bidding.
"These aspects of the court's decision received less attention in the popular media but may actually prove to have a more significant impact on the scope of federal power in the future," said Lemper, a clinical professor of business law at Kelley.
In his research, Lemper often takes a more critical approach to overlooked details in legislation and jurisprudence. Earlier research brought to light a drafting error in the federal trademark dilution statute, which led Congress to amend the law last fall.
In his paper, "The Supreme Struggle: 'Obamacare' and the New Limits on Federal Regulation," Lemper bases his arguments on two points raised in the court's opinion: new limits on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and to coerce states with the threat of losing federal funding.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the limits on Congress' power in the Constitution, and the reservation of powers to the states, were intended to protect individual liberty.
Details overlooked in media reports about the decision include what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent, called "a novel constraint" on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, a sweeping and seemingly unlimited power that has been used to uphold a broad range of federal regulations on activity far beyond traditional commercial transactions, Lemper said.
"Set in historical context, the court's decision is significant because it establishes a new limit on Congress' expansive power under the Commerce Clause," he wrote. "Five of the nine justices concluded that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate existing commercial activity, but does not allow Congress to compel individuals to become active in commerce.
"In other words, Congress can regulate activity under the Commerce Clause, but it cannot regulate inactivity."
Applying this rationale to the Affordable Care Act, the majority on the court concluded that the individual mandate (requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty) exceeded Congress' power to regulate commerce because it compelled people to engage in commerce by buying health insurance.
"That the court still upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' more limited power to lay and collect taxes does not diminish the significance of the limit that it placed on Congress' more expansive power to regulate interstate commerce," Lemper said. "Congress' power to lay and collect taxes is more limited and less coercive than its power to regulate interstate commerce, which -- before this decision -- increasingly appeared to have no limit."
"The court's decision precludes Congress from venturing into new regulatory territory under the guise of regulating commerce," he said. "At the very least, it forecloses future governmental regulation that uses a person's inaction as a basis to compel them to act."
Lemper said the court's decision also broke new ground in restricting Congress' power under the Spending Clause. Seven of the justices -- "a majority of rare size for this court" -- held that the Affordable Care Act wrongly coerced states into accepting the Medicare expansion by threatening them with the loss of all Medicare funding (a significant portion of states' budgets) if they refused to do so.
"The court's decision is remarkable because it is the first time that the court has ever struck down a federal law under the Spending Clause on the ground that it runs counter to the system of federalism in the Constitution," he added. "For decades, the court has recognized the possibility that the federalism principles could limit Congress' power under the Spending Clause, but it had never actually done so until its decision on the Affordable Care Act.
"Its landmark holding gives real teeth to limits on Congress' power that had previously only existed in theory."
###
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision established new limits on federal authority, IU paper says
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
31-Oct-2013
[
| E-mail
]
Share
Contact: George Vlahakis vlahakis@iu.edu 812-855-0846 Indiana University
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A new paper by an Indiana University professor sheds new light on the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, which many critics said threatens state sovereignty and individual liberties.
The paper comes at a time when problems with the act's implementation, particularly the creation of state health care exchanges, highlight the limits of federal capabilities and the importance of state cooperation in the success of domestic government programs.
In an article in Business Horizons, a journal published by IU's Kelley School of Business, Tim Lemper argues that the court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius actually established new limits on the power of the federal government.
"The court was heavily criticized for betraying the principles of federalism and limited government in the U.S. Constitution," Lemper said. "In reality, the court's decision placed groundbreaking limits on Congress' power to regulate commerce and use federal funds to pressure states into doing its bidding.
"These aspects of the court's decision received less attention in the popular media but may actually prove to have a more significant impact on the scope of federal power in the future," said Lemper, a clinical professor of business law at Kelley.
In his research, Lemper often takes a more critical approach to overlooked details in legislation and jurisprudence. Earlier research brought to light a drafting error in the federal trademark dilution statute, which led Congress to amend the law last fall.
In his paper, "The Supreme Struggle: 'Obamacare' and the New Limits on Federal Regulation," Lemper bases his arguments on two points raised in the court's opinion: new limits on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and to coerce states with the threat of losing federal funding.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the limits on Congress' power in the Constitution, and the reservation of powers to the states, were intended to protect individual liberty.
Details overlooked in media reports about the decision include what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent, called "a novel constraint" on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, a sweeping and seemingly unlimited power that has been used to uphold a broad range of federal regulations on activity far beyond traditional commercial transactions, Lemper said.
"Set in historical context, the court's decision is significant because it establishes a new limit on Congress' expansive power under the Commerce Clause," he wrote. "Five of the nine justices concluded that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate existing commercial activity, but does not allow Congress to compel individuals to become active in commerce.
"In other words, Congress can regulate activity under the Commerce Clause, but it cannot regulate inactivity."
Applying this rationale to the Affordable Care Act, the majority on the court concluded that the individual mandate (requiring individuals to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty) exceeded Congress' power to regulate commerce because it compelled people to engage in commerce by buying health insurance.
"That the court still upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' more limited power to lay and collect taxes does not diminish the significance of the limit that it placed on Congress' more expansive power to regulate interstate commerce," Lemper said. "Congress' power to lay and collect taxes is more limited and less coercive than its power to regulate interstate commerce, which -- before this decision -- increasingly appeared to have no limit."
"The court's decision precludes Congress from venturing into new regulatory territory under the guise of regulating commerce," he said. "At the very least, it forecloses future governmental regulation that uses a person's inaction as a basis to compel them to act."
Lemper said the court's decision also broke new ground in restricting Congress' power under the Spending Clause. Seven of the justices -- "a majority of rare size for this court" -- held that the Affordable Care Act wrongly coerced states into accepting the Medicare expansion by threatening them with the loss of all Medicare funding (a significant portion of states' budgets) if they refused to do so.
"The court's decision is remarkable because it is the first time that the court has ever struck down a federal law under the Spending Clause on the ground that it runs counter to the system of federalism in the Constitution," he added. "For decades, the court has recognized the possibility that the federalism principles could limit Congress' power under the Spending Clause, but it had never actually done so until its decision on the Affordable Care Act.
"Its landmark holding gives real teeth to limits on Congress' power that had previously only existed in theory."
###
[
| E-mail
Share
]
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 21, 2013, on the initial rollout of the health care overhaul. Obama acknowledged that the widespread problems with his health care law's rollout are unacceptable, as the administration scrambles to fix the cascade of computer issues. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 21, 2013, on the initial rollout of the health care overhaul. Obama acknowledged that the widespread problems with his health care law's rollout are unacceptable, as the administration scrambles to fix the cascade of computer issues. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just two weeks after President Barack Obama saw his Democratic Party put up an unyielding front against Republicans, his coalition is showing signs of stress.
From health care to spying to pending budget deals, many congressional Democrats are challenging the administration and pushing for measures that the White House has not embraced.
Some Democrats are seeking to extend the enrollment period for new health care exchanges. Others want to place restraints on National Security Administration surveillance capabilities. Still others are standing tough against any budget deal that uses long-term reductions in major benefit programs to offset immediate cuts in defense.
Though focused on disparate issues, the Democrats' anxieties are connected by timing and stand out all the more when contrasted with the remarkable unity the party displayed during the recent showdown over the partial government shutdown and the confrontation over raising the nation's borrowing limit.
"That moment was always going to be fleeting," said Matt Bennett, who worked in the Clinton White House and who regularly consults with Obama aides. "The White House, every White House, understands that these folks, driven either by principle or the demands of the politics of their state, have to put daylight between themselves and the president on occasion."
Obama and the Democrats emerged from the debt and shutdown clash with what they wanted: a reopened government, a higher debt ceiling and a Republican Party reeling in the depths of public opinion polls.
But within days, attention turned to the problem-riddled launch of the 3-year-old health care law's enrollment stage and revelations that the U.S. had been secretly monitoring the communications of as many as 35 allied leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And with new budget talks underway, Democratic Party liberals reiterated demands that Obama not agree to changes that reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits even in the improbable event Republicans agree to increase budget revenues.
The fraying on the Democratic Party edges is hardly unraveling Obama's support and it pales when compared to the upheaval within the Republican Party as it distances itself from the tactics of tea party conservatives. But the pushback from Democrats comes as Obama is trying to draw renewed attention to his agenda, including passage of an immigration overhaul, his jobs initiatives and the benefits of his health care law.
The computer troubles that befell the start of health insurance sign-ups have caused the greatest anxiety. Republicans pounced on the difficulties as evidence of deeper flaws in the law. But Democrats, even as they defended the policy, also demanded answers in the face of questions from their constituents.
"The fact is that the administration really failed these Americans," Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., told Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner at a hearing this week. "So going forward, there can be just no more excuses."
In the Senate, 10 Democrats signed on to a letter seeking an unspecified extension of the enrollment period, which ends March 31. "As you continue to fix problems with the website and the enrollment process, it is critical that the administration be open to modifications that provide greater flexibility for the American people seeking to access health insurance," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., wrote.
Another Democratic senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has called for a one-year delay in the requirement that virtually all Americans have health insurance or pay a fine.
On Thursday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, Tavenner and the White House's designated troubleshooter for the health care web site, Jeffrey Zients, were meeting privately with Senate Democrats to offer reassurances.
Democrats who have talked to White House officials in recent days describe them as rattled by the health care blunders. But they say they are confident that the troubled website used for enrollment will be corrected and fully operational by the end of November.
The spying revelations also have created some tensions between the administration and Democrats. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and until now a staunch supporter of the NSA's surveillance, called for a "total review of all intelligence programs" following the Merkel reports.
She said that when it came to the NSA collecting intelligence on the leaders of allies such as France, Spain, Mexico and Germany, "Let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed."
In the House, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, a Democratic member of the House intelligence committee, complained that the intelligence committees had been kept out of the loop about the collection of data on foreign leaders.
"Why did we not know that heads of state were being eavesdropped on, spied on?" she asked Obama administration intelligence officials on Tuesday. "We are the Intelligence Committee. And we did not -- we didn't know that. And now all of us, all of us, are dealing with a problem in our international relations. There will be changes."
With Congress renewing budget talks Wednesday, liberals have been outspoken in their insistence that Democrats vigorously resist efforts to reduce long-term deficits with savings in Social Security or Medicare. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who usually votes with Democrats, has been the most outspoken, saying he fears a budget deal will contain a proposal in Obama's budget to reduce cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and other benefit programs.
Obama, however, has proposed that remedy only if Republicans agree to raise tax revenue, a bargain that GOP lawmakers involved in the discussions made clear they would reject. Moreover, leaders from both parties as well as White House officials have signaled that in budget talks, they are looking for a small budget deal, not the type of "grand bargain" that would embrace such a revenue-for-benefit-cuts deal.
Still, many liberals warn that such cuts aren't palatable even if coupled with additional revenues.
"The idea, the notion that we're going to solve this problem or it's going to be OK if we were able to raise revenue and cut this thing back at the same time, it just isn't going to fly outside of Washington," said Jim Dean, chairman of the liberal advocacy group Democracy for America.
Follow Jim Kuhnhenn at http://twitter.com/jkuhnhenn
I knew the NSA drawing was real from the smiley-face. Only an eager and myopic software engineer—seeing the interception of Google and Yahoo’s data as a challenge and game rather than as a security and political matter—would make such a light-hearted and self-satisfied gesture at the prospect of hacking into Google’s internal servers.
Google knows it’s real as well. “Two engineers with close ties to Google exploded in profanity when they saw the drawing,” writes the Washington Post, which broke the story yesterday (with some help from Edward Snowden). Google’s Chief Legal Officer David Drummond issued the fighting words of someone who knows they’re winning: "We are outraged at the lengths to which the government seems to have gone to intercept data from our private fiber networks, and it underscores the need for urgent reform." Google, clearly fed up, has been rushing to encrypt as much of their traffic as possible. (Full disclosure: I used to work for Google, and my wife still does, though she is refusing to tell me anything she may or may not know—even though it seems unfair that the NSA knows and I don’t.)
The NSA’s spying system is called MUSCULAR, which, according to the Post, can copy “entire data flows across fiber-optic cables that carry information among the data centers of the Silicon Valley giants.” Even the name MUSCULAR smacks of the brutish attitude that compels the NSA to sweep up petabytes of data without being able to process most of it. Call it Broveillance, or Brotal Information Awareness. The unnamed author of the NSA slides provided to the Post is basically begging the agency to stop collecting so much useless garbage. The slides complain of the data’s “relatively small intelligence value” given that the MUSCULAR data makes up one-quarter of all information acquisition.
Just to be clear, that means that one-quarter of the NSA’s surveillance data comes from Google and Yahoo alone. The NSA intercepted the largest sewer pipes of information on the entire Internet and diverted them to dump into their data centers, so that they could search for pearls.
Combine that with the knowledge that NSA chief Keith Alexander is a macho nerd who had his command center built to look like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise (complete with doors that go whoosh), and we have a nice picture of a group of spooks that fancy themselves as James Bond’s Q but are actually closer to Inspector Gadget.
We now have a nice picture of a group of spooks that fancy themselves as James Bond’s Q but are actually closer to Inspector Gadget.
Although the diagram refers to Google, the leaked presentation only briefly refers to “defeating” Gmail. They also refer to “FB buddylist sampling since last year”—i.e., spying on your Facebook friends list—but mostly the slides talk about Yahoo.
The key passage is this one: “Yahoo has been transferring entire email accounts using the Narchive data format (a proprietary format) ... Narchive traffic is collected and forwarded to NSA for memorialization.” “Narchive” is evidently Yahoo’s archival format that can contain the entire contents of a Yahoo user’s mailbox. The Narchive format is internal to Yahoo—that is, no computer outside of Yahoo ever sees it or should even be aware of its existence. (I can’t even find any references to it on the Web.) So there’s your evidence that the NSA was monitoring Yahoo’s internal operations.
Yahoo uses the Narchive format when transferring mail accounts across data centers. Your email account is located within a single one of Yahoo’s datacenters. If they decide, for one reason or another, that your mailbox should be located on a data center in Australia instead of the United States (say, because you live in Australia and so it’ll be much faster for you there), they package all of your data up into the Narchive format and send it from their United States data center to the Australia data center, where they unpack it and set it up.
This is where the NSA comes in. At least according to the slides, they are unable to monitor email accounts that reside within a data center. Instead, they catch them in the process of being transferred along the intercontinental fiber pipes via “secret access to a cable or switch” offered by “an unnamed telecommunications provider,” according to the Post. This means that the NSA can’t do ongoing monitoring of a particular email account, but they can just happen to catch whichever accounts are being transferred—at which point they just snag the whole thing. Since only a small subset of accounts are transferred intercontinentally, they are effectively capturing snapshots of a random subset of accounts at arbitrary points in time. (The slides point out that over one-half of the mail is more than three months old, and one-quarter of it is more than a year old.)
This is the very opposite of targeted collection, and of course it gives lie to any statement about how the NSA was only collecting metadata and not collecting on Americans. The NSA has no idea which of these accounts belong to Americans and which to foreigners. How would they? They admit they don’t even know what they’re sweeping up.
The slides note that “FISA restrospective [sic] collection” would be just as effective and far more efficient than the sewer pipe approach of MUSCULAR. The slides don’t mention that FISA collection would also have the happy side effect of being legal, but I suppose that issue wasn’t on the NSA’s radar. MUSCULAR: inconvenient, useless, and illegal. The perfect encapsulation of the Broveillance attitude.
Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper will say various things in response, in line with the nondenial denial already issued by the NSA, which puts so many conditionals on what it claims not to do that it might as well be a confession. Clapper and Alexander have already both lied to Congress, so there is little reason to listen to them. Alexander is on his way out, and Clapper needs to go too. Nothing short of an agency overhaul will reestablish trust.
If the definition of going mad with power is pissing off people who can cause you real trouble—like Angela Merkel and Larry Page—Alexander went mad with power the day he took the job. He has lied, broken the law, violated trusts, wasted billions of dollars, and damaged the security of the U.S. far more than anyone he has criticized. He will be seen in retrospect as the perfect illustration of a period when a modicum of technical knowledge was enough to create the illusion of competence in the eyes of the establishment.
Obama may accept the mere appearance of NSA reform in the coming months. But the pressure is mounting: When you’ve lost NSA water-carrier Dianne Feinstein, you are indeed “really screwed.” Despite Obama’s evident unwillingness to buck the system on whistleblower persecution, illegal detention, black sites, and drone strikes, he may be forced to do the right thing here and rein in this rogue agency.
She’s a huge fan of Disney’s “Peter Pan,” and Ireland Baldwin decided to dress as the Native American chief from the story for Halloween.
However, when the just-turned-18 model posted photos of herself in face paint and a headdress, some of her Twitter followers got pretty cranky.
In response to the criticism, Ireland tweeted, “This is who I was being for Halloween at Disneyland. You all are pathetic… I’m also well aware of what many tribes encountered in the past.”
“And for some of you pathetic morons to bring my family and other matters into the discussion. you are all sad excuses for human beings,” she added, noting that she has Cherokee in her bloodline.
After things cooled off, Baldwin offered an apology- “People make mistakes, everyone. I made a mistake and I apologize if it offended.”
Apple has -- compared to most technology companies -- nearly unlimited resources. Billions in the bank and plenty of time between upgrades. If Apple can expend resources to shave thickness in 1/100th of a millimeter increments off the iPad to create the iPad Air, the company sure as heck ought to be able to figure out a word processing application.
Real updates to Apple's iWork suite of apps -- Pages, Numbers and Keynote -- have been a long time coming, so when Apple updated the suite with a free upgrade that plays well with iOS 7 and with Web browsers, plenty of users jumped into the new version without looking. Unfortunately, a good many found they had leapt into a shallow pool full of sharp rocks.
Feature parity with iWork '09 is not one-to-one with the new iWork, and users are complaining in all sorts of places online. In one discussion thread on the Apple Support Communities pages, there are nearly 400 posts and more than 25,000 views on a question asking why Apple got rid of so many useful features in the new Pages -- and it then goes on to list them in excruciating crowdsourced detail.
Personally, despite typing words most days of the year, I've always had a love-hate relationship with Pages, as well as with Numbers and Keynote. Mostly Pages, though. Microsoft Word is a bloated mess of features, ribbons, toolbars and all sorts of distracting crud, and while Pages has always been leaner in its set of features, it's bloated in that there is far too much wasted white space that is very difficult to pare down -- at least, in my opinion.
I want lean and mean where almost nothing gets in the way of the words. When I'm making posters designed to help find a lost cat, yeah, templates and such are nice -- but that's just me.
The point is, any sort of power user has all sorts of personal needs around software applications and, more importantly, all sorts of habits and preferences. Consequently, mass upgrades have a tendency to irritate some of the most important users. If Apple is willing to anger and disappoint its power users, though, what's the better play here? Who's the new user?
Apple's New 'More Important' Users
Unfortunately, I see two realistic possible reasons for Apple's iWork upgrade debacle: 1) Apple dropped the ball and lost features by accident and changed things in ways that were dumb because it didn't put enough resources or time into the upgrade and new version; or 2) Apple reset iWork on purpose for a greater good.
While reason No. 1 is possible, I have a hard time believing it. Apple has -- compared to most technology companies -- nearly unlimited resources. Billions in the bank and plenty of time between upgrades. If Apple can expend resources to shave thickness in 1/100th of a millimeter increments off the iPad to create the iPad Air, the company sure as heck ought to be able to figure out a word processing application.
That means it was on purpose. Apple reset iWork with a reasonable -- but not complete -- set of features that most of the world would need and likely use. More importantly, it still is a suite of applications that creates files that can be shared seamlessly between iOS devices, Macs and Web browsers -- as well as edited collaboratively on the fly via iCloud. The goal is to take iWork to the masses.
More to the point, I think Apple is paying attention to the education market in a whole new way, and while iWork will handle the needs of many individuals and business users -- who also like free -- Apple is really resetting iWork so that it's ready to rock and roll for students.
94 Percent of the Education Tablet Market
In Apple's earnings call with investors earlier this week, CEO Tim Cook said the iPad's educational market share is "unheard of," and at 94 percent, he's right. That's astounding. Especially with all the cheap competition trying to get in -- and when most of the PCs in education these days are still Windows-based.
If iWork is free and upgrades are free, Apple just removed a hindrance for IT management and cost at schools -- and for students at home. At the same time, if these apps can be used via iCloud for free via Web browsers, kids can work anywhere on their reports and projects, even if they don't have Macs or iPads at home.
And they can do it collaboratively. In the school districts I'm aware of, collaboration and group projects seem to be on the rise. If student work shifts away from Microsoft Word and PowerPoint toward iWork and Apple, wow -- this would be a major coup for Apple.
Forget being "compatible" with PowerPoint. What if a majority of kids created their presentations first on Keynote instead of PowerPoint? That's a huge mindshare shift, and it's not just about battling Microsoft in an office suite battle fought on tablets -- it marginalizes Android as an OS in schools, too.
Side Effect of Bigger Goals
If more people can seamlessly use iWork everywhere, that's a good thing. However, I see the iWork messiness as a Apple choosing to take three steps forward and one step back while it marches toward a different goal.
I remain baffled as to how a company that can compress magic into tiny devices and ship it all over the world still can't get word processing right.
MacNewsWorld columnist Chris Maxcer has been writing about the tech industry since the birth of the email newsletter, and he still remembers the clacking Mac keyboards from high school -- Apple's seed-planting strategy at work. While he enjoys elegant gear and sublime tech, there's something to be said for turning it all off -- or most of it -- to go outside. To catch him, take a "firstnamelastname" guess at WickedCoolBite.com.
We may compare Panasonic to the character of Michael Myers way too often, but this Halloween the analogy is particularly relevant given news the company is officially killing plasma TV production. Manufacturing of plasma panels will end in December this year, earlier than the most recent rumor ...
Kicking off the week with an interesting ensemble, Lady Gaga stepped out of The Langham Hotel in London, England on Monday morning (October 28).
The “Edge of Glory” singer painted her face and body white and donned a custom pale yellow dress as she gave fans a thrill before getting started on her press duties.
On Saturday night (October 26), Gaga dropped by the notorious G-A-Y nightclub where she sang “Venus” and got naked on stage.
“Little Britain” star Matt Lucas tweeted, “Just saw Lady Gaga do a surprise set at G-A-Y. She got her arse out & showed her vagina. All agreed it was impressive but we're staying gay.”
Lady Gaga also shared, "Had an amazing night tonight at G-A-Y in London, after all these years you continue to inspire me.”
FILE - In this Oct. 24, 2013 file photo, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks in Phoenix. As the public face of President Barack Obama’s signature health care program, Sebelius has become the target for attacks over its botched rollout. Republicans want her to resign and even some Democrats _ while not mentioning her name _ say someone needs to be fired. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
FILE - In this Oct. 24, 2013 file photo, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks in Phoenix. As the public face of President Barack Obama’s signature health care program, Sebelius has become the target for attacks over its botched rollout. Republicans want her to resign and even some Democrats _ while not mentioning her name _ say someone needs to be fired. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
Marilyn Tavenner, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, before the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Stressing that improvements are happening daily, the senior Obama official closest to the administration's malfunctioning health care website apologized Tuesday for problems that have kept Americans from successfully signing up for coverage. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp , R-Mich., right, greets Marilyn Tavenner, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2013, prior to Tavenner testifying before the committee's hearing on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Stressing that improvements are happening daily, the senior Obama official closest to the administration's malfunctioning health care website apologized Tuesday for problems that have kept Americans from successfully signing up for coverage. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Eager to cast blame, lawmakers are preparing to grill President Barack Obama's top health official over problems with the rollout of the government's health care website.
A growing number of Republicans in Congress are calling for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to step down or be fired because of problems consumers are having signing up for insurance coverage on the government's new website.
On Wednesday, Sebelius heads to Capitol Hill to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, her first appearance before Congress since state-based health exchanges opened for business on Oct. 1.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Health Committee, on Tuesday joined the list of GOP lawmakers calling for Sebelius to go.
"Taxpayers have spent $400 million to create exchanges that, after 3½ years, still don't work," Alexander said. "No private-sector chief executive officer would escape accountability after such a poor performance."
Sebelius is likely to face questions about problems with the website as well as a wave of cancellation notices hitting small businesses and individuals who buy their own insurance. Lawmakers also want to know how many people have enrolled in plans through the health exchanges, a number the Obama administration has so far refused to divulge.
On Tuesday, Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner was questioned for nearly three hours by members of the House Ways and Means Committee who wanted to know why so many of their constituents were getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies.
"So what happened to the 'If you like your insurance, you can keep it' question?" asked Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Camp was referring to one of Obama's earliest promises about the health law: You can keep your plan if you like it. Obama's promise dates back to June 2009, when Congress was starting to grapple with overhauling the health care system to cover uninsured Americans.
As early as last spring, state insurance commissioners started giving insurers the option of canceling existing individual plans for 2014, because the coverage required under Obama's law is significantly more robust. Some states directed insurers to issue cancellations. Large employer plans that cover most workers and their families are unlikely to be affected.
The law includes a complicated "grandfathering" system to try to make good on Obama's pledge. It shields plans from the law's requirements provided the plans themselves change very little. Insurers say it has proven impractical. The cancellation notices are now reaching policyholders.
Tavenner blamed insurance companies for cancelling the policies and said most people who lose coverage will be able to find better replacement plans in the health insurance exchanges, in some cases for less money. Change is a constant in the individual insurance market, she added, saying that about half of plans "churn" over in any given year.
Tavenner delivered the most direct mea culpa yet from the administration for the technical problems that have kept many Americans from signing up through HealthCare.gov. Consumers complain that the site is slow, locks up and often kicks them off before they can complete their application.
"I want to apologize to you that the website has not worked as well as it should," she told the Ways and Means Committee.
Tavenner said the website is improving and the problems should be resolved by the end of November, giving consumers time to get coverage by the March 31 deadline.
The first senior official to publicly answer questions from lawmakers, Tavenner was also pressed about the number of people who have so far enrolled in health plans through the exchanges. Committee members asked Tavenner at least 19 times about the number of people who have so far enrolled through the exchanges.
Each time, she gave a well-rehearsed answer: "We will not have those numbers available until mid-November."
___
Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gestures while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, before the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the difficulties plaguing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Obama Administration claims the botched rollout was the result of contractors failing to live up to expectations – not bad management at HHS. As the public face of President Barack Obama's signature health care program, Sec. Sebelius has become the target for attacks over its botched rollout with Republicans, and even some Democrats, calling for her to resign. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gestures while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, before the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the difficulties plaguing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Obama Administration claims the botched rollout was the result of contractors failing to live up to expectations – not bad management at HHS. As the public face of President Barack Obama's signature health care program, Sec. Sebelius has become the target for attacks over its botched rollout with Republicans, and even some Democrats, calling for her to resign. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is surrounded by photographers on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, prior to testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the difficulties plaguing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius, President Barack Obama's top health official faced tough questioning by a congressional committee Wednesday that will demand she explain how the administration stumbled so badly in its crippled online launch of the president's health care overhaul. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., prior to testifying before the committee's hearing on the difficulties plaguing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius, President Barack Obama's top health official faced tough questioning by a congressional committee Wednesday that will demand she explain how the administration stumbled so badly in its crippled online launch of the president's health care overhaul. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, prior to testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the difficulties plaguing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. President Barack Obama's top health official faced tough questioning by a congressional committee Wednesday that will demand she explain how the administration stumbled so badly in its crippled online launch of the president's health care overhaul. (AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defending President Barack Obama's much-maligned health care overhaul in Congress, his top health official was confronted Wednesday with a government memo raising new security concerns about the trouble-prone website that consumers are using to enroll.
The document, obtained by The Associated Press, shows that administration officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were concerned that a lack of testing posed a potentially "high" security risk for the HealthCare.gov website serving 36 states. It was granted a temporary security certificate so it could operate.
Security issues are a new concern for the troubled HealthCare.gov website. If they cannot be resolved, they could prove to be more serious than the long list of technical problems the administration is trying to address.
"You accepted a risk on behalf of every user...that put their personal financial information at risk," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius during questioning before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "Amazon would never do this. ProFlowers would never do this. Kayak would never do this. This is completely an unacceptable level of security."
Sebelius countered that the system is secure, even though the site has a temporary certificate, known in government parlance as an "authority to operate." Sebelius said a permanent certificate will only be issued once all security issues are addressed.
Added spokeswoman Joanne Peters: "When consumers fill out their online...applications, they can trust that the information they're providing is protected by stringent security standards and that the technology underlying the application process has been tested and is secure. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices."
A security certificate is required before any government computer system can process, store or transmit agency data. Temporary certificates are allowable, but under specific circumstances.
Earlier, the secretary said she's responsible for the "debacle" of cascading problems that overwhelmed the government website intended to make shopping for health insurance clear and simple.
"Hold me accountable for the debacle," Sebelius said during a contentious hearing. "I'm responsible."
Sebelius is promising to have the problems fixed by Nov. 30, even as Republicans opposed to Obama's health care law are calling in chorus for her resignation. She told the committee that the technical issues that led to frozen screens and error messages are being cleared up on a daily basis.
Addressing consumers, Sebelius added, "So let me say directly to these Americans, you deserve better. I apologize."
The Sept. 27 memo to Medicare chief Marylin Tavenner said a website contractor wasn't able to test all the security controls in one complete version of the system.
"From a security perspective, the aspects of the system that were not tested due to the ongoing development, exposed a level of uncertainty that can be deemed as a high risk for the (website)," the memo said.
It recommended setting up a security team to address risks, conduct daily tests, and a full security test within two to three months of going live.
HealthCare.gov was intended to be the online gateway to coverage for millions of uninsured Americans, as well those who purchase their policies individually. Many people in the latter group will have to get new insurance next year, because their policies do not meet the standards of the new law.
Sebelius' forthright statement about her ultimate accountability came as she was being peppered with questions by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., about who was responsible. It was Blackburn who introduced the term "debacle."
Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee, scoffed at Republican "oversight" of a law they have repeatedly tried to repeal.
"I would urge my colleagues to stop hyperventilating," said Waxman. "The problems with HealthCare.gov are unfortunate and we should investigate them, but they will be fixed. And then every American will have -- finally have access to affordable health insurance."
Throughout the hearing, Sebelius was respectful and poised, often addressing lawmakers as "sir" or "congresswoman." She kept her cool as some lawmakers repeatedly cut off her answers. But she did not shy a few times from tersely interjecting her views while a member was speaking.
The standing-room-only hearing room was silent when she swore an oath to tell the truth and began her statement. "I apologize," she told the rapt committee.
Sebelius faced questions about problems with the website as well as a wave of cancellation notices hitting individuals and small businesses who buy their own insurance.
Lawmakers also want to know how many people have enrolled in plans through the health exchanges, a number the Obama administration has so far refused to divulge, instead promising to release it in mid-November.
On Tuesday, Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner was questioned for nearly three hours by members of the House Ways and Means Committee who wanted to know why so many of their constituents were getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies.
The cancellations problem goes to one of Obama's earliest promises about the health law: You can keep your plan if you like it. The promise dates back to June 2009, when Congress was starting to grapple with overhauling the health care system to cover uninsured Americans.
As early as last spring, state insurance commissioners started giving insurers the option of canceling existing individual plans for 2014, because the coverage required under Obama's law is significantly more robust. Some states directed insurers to issue cancellations. Large employer plans that cover most workers and their families are unlikely to be affected.
The law includes a complicated "grandfathering" system to try to make good on Obama's pledge. It shields plans from the law's requirements provided the plans themselves change very little. Insurers say it has proven impractical. The cancellation notices are now reaching policyholders.
Tavenner blamed insurance companies for cancelling the policies and said most people who lose coverage will be able to find better replacement plans in the health insurance exchanges, in some cases for less money.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](http://www.eurekalert.org/images/back2e.gif){kind=small}
Share
MacNewsWorld columnist Chris Maxcer has been writing about the tech industry since the birth of the email newsletter, and he still remembers the clacking Mac keyboards from high school -- Apple's seed-planting strategy at work. While he enjoys elegant gear and sublime tech, there's something to be said for turning it all off -- or most of it -- to go outside. To catch him, take a "firstnamelastname" guess at 
We may compare Panasonic to the character of Michael Myers way too often, but this Halloween the analogy is particularly relevant given news the company is officially killing plasma TV production. Manufacturing of plasma panels will end in December this year, earlier than the most recent rumor ...