text:
FERC v. MISSISSIPPI
Legal provision: Amendment 10: Tenth Amendment
ORAL ARGUMENT OF REX E. LEE, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
Chief Justice Burger: We will hear arguments next in... 80-1749, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against Mississippi.
Mr. Solicitor General, you may proceed when you're ready.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, one of five statutes enacted in 1978 as part of a comprehensive effort to deal with this nation's energy problems.
It would be helpful to consider the statute in two basic parts.
The first part consists of Titles I and III, which share three common statutorily-identified goals.
The first is to promote the conservation of energy supplied by utilities; second is to optimize the efficient use of facilities and resources by utilities; and the third is to ensure equitable rights to consumers.
Title I deals with electricity, and Title III with gas.
Title I requires state regulatory authorities and non-regulated electric utilities to consider the adoption of one set of standards, six in number, dealing with electric rates, and a second set of standards, five in number, dealing with terms and conditions of electric service.
The rate standards, all of them, and some of the electric service standards are directed toward two objectives.
The first is to cut down the amount of electric energy, and therefore imported oil, that is consumed in this country.
And the second objective is to shift electric demand away from peak periods, thereby diminishing the use of less efficient generating facilities and scarce fuels; notably, oil.
As to gas, Title III requires consideration of only two of the terms service standards.
Each of the standards, both Title I and Title III, is to be considered in a hearing after public notice, and a written statement of the reasons for declining to implement or adopt... in the event of a declamation to implement or adopt... any of the standards is to be made available to the public.
In addition, Titles I and III require that within one year after enactment of the statute and annually thereafter for ten years, state regulatory authorities and non-regulated utilities report the progress of their consideration of these standards to the Secretary of Energy who in turn is to submit a summary and analysis of the reports to Congress.
The other part of the statute is Title II, probably the most controversial.
Specifically, Section 210, whose objective is to encourage the development of cogeneration and small power production facilities.
Cogeneration is the combined product of both electrical energy and useful thermal energy such as heat or steam from a single process.
It has great potential as a source of energy conservation.
At one time it accounted for some 15 % of this nation's energy total, but with the advent of cheap fossil fuel power, that has diminished to 4 %.
A small power production facility is a facility having a capacity of no more than 80 megawatts and using something other fossil fuels, defined by the statute as biomass, waste, geothermal or renewable resources such as wind, water, solar energy, for the purpose of producing electric power.
Congress identified two impediments to the potential of cogeneration and small power production facilities as additional sources of domestic power with consequent lessening of dependence on foreign oil.
The first was its conclusion that subjecting cogeneration and small power production facilities to the usual state and federal regulatory burdens was unnecessary and would unduly discourage their development.
The more controversial aspect of the congressional determination was the second.
These two types of facilities must rely on traditional electric utilities, both as a source of backup power, and also as a market for their surplus power.
They do not sell generally to the public.
They use them only for their own purposes.
Evidence before Congress showed that since these facilities are potential competitors of public utilities, utilities were often less than cooperative in supplying either backup power or markets.
PURPA deals with each of these impediments.
Its response to the problem of surplus and backup power is the most hotly-contested of the Act's provisions.
What Congress eventually adopted in this respect represents a compromise.
The administration's proposal, which passed the House and was sent to the Senate, would have established a regulatory program virtually identical to that upheld by this Court in the Virginia Surface Mining Act case last term, under which the regulatory burden would have been assumed by federal authorities in the event that state authorities chose not to participate.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Senate bill would have required the Secretary to follow basically the Title I/Title III approach, which is simply to recommend guidelines to state public service commissions that they could adopt or not.
Opponents of the administration House bill, by the time it got to the Senate, presented to Congress substantial testimony and arguments to the effect that it was state rather than federal officials who possess the necessary expertise to implement reforms.
The legislation dealing with these issues should be responsive to local needs and local differences, and that what might be appropriate for Florida might not necessarily be appropriate for Oregon.
And that the states should be allowed to continue to experiment in the national interest with different regulatory approaches.
The compromise that became law was responsive to these arguments, which were grounded in the preservation of state interests.
The Act, in fact, gives the authority to make general rules to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in order to achieve the general objectives of the Act, but with the more specific authority to implement the statute being left to the states.
The Commission has, in fact, adopted regulations which afford the states great latitude in determining how the congressional objectives are to be achieved.
Under these regulations, state implementation may be accomplished by any one of three ways.
First of all, by the issuance of regulations.
Second, and probably most important for purposes of this lawsuit, by the resolution of disputes between utilities and qualifying facilities on a case-by-case basis.
And the third is a general catch-all; by any other action reasonably designed to give effect to the Commission's rules.
This suit was brought by the state of Mississippi and its public service commission with Mississippi Power and Light being permitted to intervene, against the Secretary of Energy who has general responsibility for Titles I and III, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which has general responsibility for Title II, Section 210, seeking a declaratory judgment that the entire Act is beyond the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause power and an unconstitutional invasion of state sovereignty as declared by this Court in National League of Cities and Towns v. Usery.
Judge Cox's decision holding the statute unconstitutional on both grounds preceded this Court's decision in Hodel v. Indiana and Virginia Surface Mining, and this appeal followed.
There are two independent reasons in the government's view why the decision of the lower court must be reversed.
Mr. Lee: May I ask, Mr. Lee, you did say that whatever federal regulations are needed have now been promulgated?
Mr. Lee: --That is correct.
That is correct.
And they are extremely deferential to the states.
They leave to the states as much discretion as the proponents of that approach before Congress said they should--
Mr. Lee: How long have they been effective?
Mr. Lee: --They were adopted... I'll find that out.
The two reasons why this decision must be reversed, in our view, are, first, applying the standards announced by this Court in Hodel and earlier in Usery, there is no constitutional violation, looking at it as an exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power.
And second, the Act is also a legitimate exercise of Congress' power to provide for our national defense.
I will look at the Commerce Clause issues first.
Last term in the Virginia Surface Mining case, this Court identified three hurdles plus a balancing test that a challenge to a congressional exercise of the Commerce power on Tenth Amendment grounds must surmount.
Before turning to a specific discussion of those three issues, however, I would like first to point out the aspect of this case that distinguishes it from National League of Cities and Towns v. Usery, and simply makes the rationale of that case inapplicable to this case.
The evil against which this Court's holding in National League of Cities and Towns protects is intrusion by one sovereign in a federal system into the prerogatives of another.
And that problem simply does not exist where, as here, the only reason that the states are exercising authority in the field at all is that Congress chooses to permit them to do so.
This difference between the Act in both of the predecessors to this case and this case is illustrated both by the history and also by the content of this legislation.
The appellees concede, as they must, that the state functions of whose federal invasion they complain could have been totally preempted by Congress.
The reason that Congress did not do so is that it was persuaded by the advocates of Federalism that the wiser policy and the more effective policy was to preserve a larger role for the states.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Lee, do you think Congress could direct, for instance, a state legislature to consider certain statutes?
Mandate that under the Tenth Amendment?
Mr. Lee: I believe, Justice O'Connor, that if it was in an area, that if it was in an area, that clearly could be preempted by Congress, in which Congress itself could have acted, and then Congress--
Mr. Lee: So in the Commerce area you would argue that Congress could go so far as to even mandate state legislatures to consider certain laws.
Mr. Lee: --Of course, the word "mandate" triggers sensitive nerves in the Tenth Amendment area.
But mandate a consideration, particularly in a circumstance such as you have in Titles I and III where the only obligation is simply to consider but not to adopt one way or the other--
Mr. Lee: But these public utility commissions of states are an administrative arm of the Legislative Branch of the government, and they are being told that they must consider certain action.
They are not being told they have to implement it, but they must consider it, isn't that so?
Mr. Lee: --That is absolutely correct, and for reasons that I attempt to discuss, we believe that that is constitutional.
The principal reason is, aside from the three hurdles, when you consider the balance of relevant interests, state and federal, particularly as applied to this kind of case, it is not that much of an intrusion, certainly not an unconstitutional intrusion, when you're dealing in areas like the Commerce Clause... and I reiterate that there is no dispute in this case that the turf on which we are operating is federal turf... it is congressional turf, the kind of regulatory area in which Congress could legislate if it chose to do so.
Instead, what Congress concluded was that its federal purposes would be better served if it permitted the states to consider certain basic objectives, not to adopt them but simply to consider them.
Mr. Lee: General Lee, what is the mechanism by which the FERC is entitled to enforce this duty to consider?
Mr. Lee: The duty to consider the Title I and III standards is vested in the Secretary.
And the mechanism is as follows.
There is the authority in the Secretary as to both Title I and Title III to intervene before the state regulatory proceedings.
In the event that the matter then proceeds to court, as to Title I the Secretary has the authority to participate as a party as an intervenor.
As to Title III, with respect to gas, he has the authority to participate only as an amicus.
Mr. Lee: What court does it proceed to?
Mr. Lee: The state courts.
And whatever courts properly review the proceedings... whatever courts the states have designated as those that are proper to--
Mr. Lee: Well, the law says that the body must consider it.
How does it... if the agency just... nothing ever comes before the agency, they don't put it on the docket, no one... does somebody suggest to them that they are under a legal obligation?
Mr. Lee: --I suppose the Secretary could appear and suggest they are under a legal obligation.
Mr. Lee: Could appear before them and say I move you or perhaps you should... and then they reject him and then--
Mr. Lee: And then they reject him.
Mr. Lee: --And then he can take them to state court to review an administrative agency--
Mr. Lee: As I read the statute, what it is talking about is that in the event that it is taken to state court, he does have the right to take--
Mr. Lee: --Oh, if it is taken to state court.
Well, how does it ever get there?
The agency says we don't want to go to court.
Mr. Lee: --Right.
The way the Act handles that, Justice White, is that in the event that the regulatory agency does not consider it, then in the next rate proceeding, which is basically an adjudicatory proceeding to... well, whether adjudicatory or legislative... in the next rate proceeding, it must consider it at that time.
Now, there is, of course,--
Mr. Lee: What if it decides it isn't going to do it?
Mr. Lee: --There is always that possibility that it can simply decide not to.
We assume, in light of the fact that states recognize the rule of law and that this is an area of federal authority, that they will conform in one way or another.
Mr. Lee: Is there some authority or even if there isn't, could the Secretary bring a suit and get an injunction ordering them to consider it, or not?
Mr. Lee: Apparently not.
There is a--
Mr. Lee: There is no provision for it, anyway, in the Act.
Mr. Lee: --No.
Apparently, the only authority that the Secretary has to enforce through federal court is his right to intervene in state court.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Solicitor, is there anymore effectiveness to this than there is to the Constitution's provision that the state officers must take an oath and support the Constitution of the United States?
Is it anymore effective than that?
Mr. Lee: My opponent, I am sure, would say that it does impose more extensive obligations than that.
The obligations that are imposed on the state that are to be balanced against the very substantial interest that the federal government has in regulating its energy program with concomitant consequences not only on energy savings themselves but on no such lesser interests as inflation, interstate commerce and national security are as follows.
On the one hand, the state must consider it; it must hold hearings, must give public notice.
Second, it must give written determination or written statements concerning its reasons.
In the event that it decides not to adopt one of the Title I or Title III standards, then it must give written statement of the reasons to do so.
And finally, the fourth is that it has to report on an annual basis for ten years.
And that's it under Title I and Title III.
Now, with regard to Section 210... this, as I say, is where we go beyond considering and actually having to do something... it would be anomalous in the extreme, I submit, to hold the Surface Mining Act, held constitutional last term, constitutional, and at the same time hold an act unconstitutional which was enacted as a compromise in direct response, in direct reaction, to Federalism interests asking for lesser intrusion in the state prerogatives and hold it unconstitutional in the name of the Tenth Amendment, which of course preserves state prerogatives.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Lee, in the Surface Mining case, couldn't the states continue regulating in that field as long as they didn't conflict with federal law?
I mean, there is a section preserving state law and procedure if it doesn't conflict.
And in this case, the state can't choose not to participate unless it just wants to get out public utility regulation totally.
So the choice for the states is much harder here, is it not, than it was in the Surface Mining case?
Mr. Lee: --Two answers to that, Justice O'Connor.
The first is I don't think it was harder because while both of them are complex pieces of legislation, the basic approach as to the Surface Mining Act was that state plans were submitted to the Secretary, and if they were acceptable, then the states could regulate.
Otherwise, the state took over and regulated directly.
Mr. Lee: You mean the federal government.
Mr. Lee: Excuse me, the federal government took over and regulated directly.
But the more persuasive distinction is that whatever the distinction, whatever the comparative intrusion on state interests, I think the best judge of that has to be the states themselves.
And it was organizations such as the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others that presented extensive testimony before the Senate saying do not adopt the Virginia Surface Mining model because if you do, three things will happen.
One is it will be a greater than necessary intrusion in the state prerogatives; number two, we need the Flexibility in this area of electric generation regulation to make adaptation for the differences that exist from one locality to the other; and the final one is we need the opportunity to continue to experiment.
It was in... I think there is no doubt that if the House bill had passed it would be constitutional.
My opponents concede that it was a Virginia Surface Mining type statute.
The reason that the House bill did not pass was because the advocates of Federalism came in and said, this is too much of an intrusion under our prerogatives.
The other matter that needs to be mentioned in this respect--
Mr. Lee: I'm just curious, Mr. Solicitor, do we know what the recorded vote of the Mississippi senators and the House delegation were on this compromise?
Mr. Lee: --That's one thing I haven't checked into, Justice Brennan.
But it is significant in that respect that the group that is perhaps the most intensely affected, the regulatory commissioners themselves, were at the forefront of this plea, don't adopt the Virginia Surface Mining model, and they were also the ones who praised before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the approach that was followed.
Mr. Lee: Well, maybe they just talked Congress into passing a law that gave them an unconstitutional order.
Mr. Lee: Oh, so that they could win in this lawsuit.
At least if they did, they did a very sophisticated job of it in presenting their evidence before the Congress.
I'd like to deal now with the compliance by the states with the Section 210 requirements for the sale of surplus power and the purchase of backup power.
There are three opportunities; there are three ways that the states are given to comply, and the third one, of course, is the very broad one, "any other means" by which the policies of the federal regulation may be obtained.
But one of those options is simply to entertain disputes between regulated utilities on the one hand and qualifying facilities, cogeneration or small power production facilities, on the other on a case-by-case basis.
Thus viewed, all that Section 210, as certainly as implemented by the FERC regulations, does is simply to provide a federal rule of decision that is applicable in those cases where the state entertains lawsuits for other type of adjudicatory proceedings.
Thus viewed, regardless of what the constitutional rule might be in the event that regulations had been required,... in further answer to Justice O'Connor's question... or that legislation had been required, that obligation can be performed, can be satisfied, simply by entertaining disputes.
And that brings the case squarely within this Court's holding in Testa v. Katt, that it is not unconstitutional for the federal government, for Congress, to supply the rule of decision applicable in state adjudicatory proceedings so long as that same kind of rule, if enacted as a source of state law, would be constitutional.
I'd like to say just a word about the comparative weight of the federal and the state interests in this case.
This case demonstrates better than either of predecessor the wisdom of what this Court implied in National League of Cities and Towns, and expressly stated in the Virginia Surface Mining case, that the federal interest... that regardless of the three tests, that the federal interest nevertheless may be such that it justifies state submission.
On the federal side of the balance scale, it would be impossible to overstate the magnitude of this nation's energy problem.
It's important not only in its own right, but also because of its effect on inflation, the environment, interstate trade and national security.
Our opponents have said that it's in the future, and that it's not something that Congress has to deal with yet.
I submit that Congress is to be praised, rather than its statute to be held unconstitutional simply because it anticipated and dealt with the problem before we have, once again, such severe problems as we have had in the past.
The other side of the balance scale is the adverse effect on state interests.
I submit that for reasons discussed, these are minimal as to Titles I and III; they require only consideration.
And as to Section 210, since they can be satisfied by a means that has already been validated by this Court in Testa v. Katt, the comparative balance between state and federal interests clearly favors the constitutionality.
And finally, this statute is a proper exercise of Congress' national security powers.
The linkage between national security on the one hand, and on the other, the dependence on foreign oil in this case and controlling the price of timber sales involved in Case v. Bowles greatly favors the balance in this particular case.
The courts of appeals that have dealt with this issue have uniformly upheld congressional statutes enacted in the interest of national security when attacked on Tenth Amendment grounds.
I would like to reserve the rest of my time.
Chief Justice Burger: Very well.
ORAL ARGUMENT OF ALEX A. ALSTON, JR., ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEES
Mr. Alston: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
I think probably the best place to start with the question of constitutionality of PURPA would be look at the Act itself.
The Solicitor General went through the Act with some detail, and the mechanics of the Act that he did discuss I do not disagree with.
However, this is certainly more than just simply a suggestion to the state of Mississippi on how to regulate their public service commission.
It's certainly more than just a study telling the public service commission what to do.
Mr. Lee: Do you agree that the federal authority could have done all the things that they hoped the states would do?
Mr. Alston: Mr. Chief Justice, if, as a matter of fact, in the findings they found that this did have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and if indeed they found that the Act itself was reasonable to affect the utilities themselves, then perhaps they could do that.
It may be absolutely so.
I don't know the answer to that question.
They may could have preempted the area.
But in the field of Federalism, if we talk about Federalism, that does not destroy the principles of Federalism.
I disagree with the Solicitor General.
If the federal government takes over an area, if they have a constitutional right to take over that area in the Constitution if it's permissible under the Commerce Clause, the federal government at that point carries the burden; they are the responsible party to exercise that law.
One of the great principles of Federalism, as a citizen of the state of Mississippi, I can look to my public officials.
We elect our public service commissioners.
I can look to them to implement, to promulgate state law.
I do not want for them to implement federal law.
I have no control over that.
It's deceptively simple to say, when they are looking at a statute like this, to say well, this is good.
A transient majority of Congress may say look, this is very good for the state of Mississippi, and what we'll do is we're going to tell the state of Mississippi what they are going to do.
That makes it easy.
But it completely destroys the concept of Federalism.
I'm not looking now to my public service commissioners to implement state law.
The public service commission is the one that gets called when the rates go up.
The burdens should not be placed on them unless they have consented to, by the electorate in the state of Mississippi.
Mr. Lee: What specifically do you object to?
The fact that... the Act saying that they must consider certain things, put certain things on their agenda?
Mr. Alston: Mr. Justice White, they completely set up an agenda for the state of Mississippi, and I was just going to go over that before the question was asked by Mr. Chief Justice.
It starts out in Section 111,
"The state of Mississippi is ordered."
You are hereby required... Section 111 says... to consider very, very complicated rate-making standards.
Section 113 says "You must" you are absolutely required, public service commission, to consider all of these other standards, six or eight standards.
Turning now to 302, 303 in the gas section, it says "You must" consider all of these standards.
Not only that, if the Court please, it tells you the procedure.
It sets the agenda for my public service commission, tells of the procedures that I have to follow.
Also, if these procedures disagree with what the procedures of the Act are, they override state law.
It's interesting, too, the Act says, that the purposes of this Act supplement state law.
Difficult to me to see how the federal government can supplement the state law to give our public service commissioners additional discretion.
But the Act goes further.
They mandate, they order that we do this, they tell the procedures that we're going to have to follow.
In addition to that, if you turn to Section 115, if the Court please, it says, here's the evidence you've got to look at when you consider these standards.
You go to 210... 210 is not just a minor section of the Act.
It says the state tax commission shall give notice and hearing and implement the rules as promulgated by the federal government, in connection with 210.
As far as any enforcement of the Act is concerned, I submit that the Solicitor General was just wrong in his answer to the Court, because as a matter of fact, under Section 123 it says any person can enforce upon the state tax commission what the Act is about.
You turn to the Conference Report, and I just happened to open to it when the Solicitor General was speaking... the Conference Report says specifically, this enforcement provision of obligation of state regulatory authorities and non-regulated utilities to hold hearings, to make... comply... requirements A and B.
They are reviewable under the orders of this Court, and they may be forced... the enforcement provision contemplates enforcement by writs of mandamus.
Mr. Lee: Does the Act mention that in a--
Mr. Alston: --Yes.
The Act, in 123, if the Court please, says they can enforce these provisions; any person can enforce these provisions.
Mr. Lee: --What does that mean, can enforce the provisions?
Mr. Alston: I don't know, except what the Conference Report says, Your Honor.
Mr. Justice White, the Conference Report says they can enforce it by writs of mandamus or other proceedings.
Mr. Lee: Well, any person couldn't do that without a case or a controversy.
I mean, just some wiseacre off the street couldn't go in and enforce it.
Mr. Alston: Yes.
The statute says any person, including the Secretary, speaking of the Secretary of Energy may bring an action to enforce the requirements of this title in the appropriate state court.
Mr. Lee: --In the appropriate state court.
Mr. Alston: Yes.
Mr. Lee: So he could bring an action in his own name against the regulatory commission seeking an order or an injunction or a writ of mandamus to make them carry out their obligations under the Act.
That's the way you read the Act.
Mr. Alston: That's exactly the way I read it, if the Court pleases.
Mr. Lee: Has any such action ever been brought, do you know?
Mr. Alston: Not that I know of.
Furthermore, under Section 210... that's under Titles I and III.
Furthermore, under Section 210 they are subject to civil and criminal penalties, they are subject to any penalty under the Federal Power Act.
In turning to the Federal Power Act, refusal to comply with the provisions would subject you to the penalties under that.
Mr. Lee: If the Act had said we request, rather than order, and some state utility commission had complied with the request but rejected all... and went through the motions but then... would you object to the Secretary having the right to appeal and challenge the agency decision?
Mr. Alston: I believe I would, Your Honor.
Mr. Lee: Under the Tenth Amendment?
I know you object to it, but would--
Mr. Alston: Yes, I believe, because... Mr. Justice White, are you talking about the intervention in the court proceedings and appeal from that?
Mr. Lee: I meant he can appear before the agency, I gather.
Mr. Alston: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lee: And suppose the agency has voluntarily gone through these motions.
They have been requested to but not ordered to, and they go through the motions.
They consider all these things.
They reject them all.
And the Secretary says, well, you certainly made a mistake; I'm going to go to court, I'm going to take you up.
And they say go ahead.
Would you say that's unconstitutional?
Mr. Alston: I think it would.
The fact that he can intervene in my state proceedings, and the fact that this is not consistent with the law of the state... you have to have a hearing, a determination, whether someone can intervene in any state proceedings, if the Court please.
That flies in the face of the principles and the procedures of our courts.
And then if he could appeal any of these decisions,... as a matter of fact, this appeal causes me some concern, Mr. Justice White, because if, really and truly, the federal government didn't care whether these were implemented or not, if they did care, why did they give them a right to appeal?
Mr. Lee: Well, what do you conceive the issue to be on appeal, say, before one of your state courts?
Or do you ordinarily hear an appeal from the utility commission?
Mr. Alston: I guess the issue on appeal would be whether or not the decision of the public service commission was arbitrary or capricious and not based on the proper standard, if the Court please, not based on substantial evidence.
Mr. Lee: So you think it would just be the ordinary state standard, and would vary from state to state, I suppose?
Mr. Alston: It would vary from state to state except that the procedure itself would be highly changed in connection with the state in the proceeding before the public service commission.
Because the rules of evidence and every other part of it would go into the question of whether or not the action was reasonable or based on substantial evidence.
Mr. Lee: I gather from that, the ultimate decision of your highest state court would not be reviewable here?
Mr. Alston: I think it would be reviewable under the Act all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, as by writs of certiorari and otherwise.
Review of the action in the Supreme Court in accordance with Sections 1257 and 1258--
Mr. Lee: Well, what federal question would there be?
That's what I... For 1257 there would have to be a final decision on the federal question, wouldn't there?
Mr. Alston: --A federal question would be perhaps, if we said we would not let the Secretary of Energy intervene, perhaps.
Mr. Lee: Maybe, but he intervenes.
He intervenes and the court affirms the rejection of all the federal standards.
Mr. Alston: --Secondly, if the Court please, we fail to follow the standards as set out in 115.
We were mandated under this procedure to follow the federal guidelines, as they told us.
We failed to do that.
It may be a federal question involved--
Mr. Lee: Whether or not you did violate something by what you did might be a federal question.
Mr. Alston: --Yes, sir.
Mr. Lee: I didn't understand you were required to follow them.
Just consider them.
Take, for example, the--
--But you have a routine of how you consider them.
Is that it?
Mr. Alston: Yes.
Mr. Lee: Is that what you're talking about about the guidelines?
Mr. Alston: Yes, you do have a routine.
If you take, for example, the master metering standard, you would have to consider the master metering standard, and you're required to do it.
You have to then--
Mr. Lee: Say you considered it and you said we don't like it, it doesn't work well in Mississippi.
Wouldn't that discharge your federal obligation?
Under Title I, that is.
Mr. Alston: --That's true.
Mr. Lee: Let me ask.
Could a consumer in Mississippi raise the same question in some of your agency procedures?
Could a consumer come in and file a petition and say I'd like to ask the commission to adopt a rule against declining block rates, or whatever they are, time-a-day rates--
Mr. Alston: I think the rule is 25 consumers under certain procedures, under the procedures set up by the court, could come in and ask for changes in the rules and rate-making--
Mr. Lee: Would it have been constitutional for Congress to pass a statute saying that the Secretary of Energy can direct 25 federal employees within the city of Jackson to file such a petition?
Who are all consumers.
Mr. Alston: --I don't know that I know the answer to that question.
Mr. Lee: Under the procedures, you'd be required to consider the standard.
Mr. Alston: Yes.
If 25 consumers came before them, they would have to make the decision of whether or not they wanted to proceed further with whatever was before them, the agency, at that time.
If it please the Court, we contend that this... the manner in which this Act was written is most unique.
They did not follow, the federal government did not follow, the provisions as they followed, or the scheme that they followed in all of the other regulatory provisions.
They gave the state the option of whether or not... as they did in the Surface Mining case, if the Court please... the option of whether or not they would desire to follow the procedures or not, and gave them the right to get out.
They didn't want to.
Under those circumstances, the federal government, at that point, would take over the whole administration of that area.
This is entirely different from what we are talking about today.
As a matter of fact, I have been trying to find some statute or some authority... and certainly the Solicitor General hasn't given me any authority... that would be constitutional where a statute is mandated on a state regulatory commission and they are required to follow the mandates of that statute.
And as a matter of fact, they commandeer the public service commission's machinery into going about this Act.
The only cases that I think I saw that are closest to it were the EPA cases that came up to this Court in EPA v. Brown.
Mr. Lee: I'm not sure you really mean your statement.
There are a lot of federal laws that forbid a state agency from doing certain things.
Mr. Alston: Yes, sir.
They may be state laws that forbid, but I don't--
Mr. Lee: Federal laws that forbid state agencies from doing certain things.
Mr. Alston: --There may be, if the Court please, statutes that forbid state agencies from doing certain things where there is a conflict.
But I know of no case.
Mr. Lee: Well, all right.
That makes a conflict.
If the prohibition is constitutional, that is a conflict if the state agency purports to do something that it's forbidden to do.
Mr. Alston: Yes, sir.
The point that I--
Mr. Lee: I know that this is different.
Mr. Alston: --Yes, sir.
The point that I 'm trying to make, I know of no statute and I have seen no case where affirmative burdens are placed on an administrative agency of a state.
Mr. Lee: Have you been able to find any other statute like this?
Has there ever been one, do you know?
Mr. Alston: I don't know of any statute like this.
The closest I can recall are the EPA v. Brown that came before this Court.
As you recall, in that case, the--
Mr. Lee: I know, but the state still had an option.
Mr. Alston: --The issue was, in that case, whether or not the administrator of the EPA could require the state to implement certain rules and regulations.
Mr. Lee: That's right.
Mr. Alston: The Solicitor General admitted that it could not do that, and therefore, this Court held, I believe, in 1977 that the issue was moot.
The only other time that I can recall anything that has been considered, if the Court please, is when Congress was attempting to pass no-fault insurance.
And I remember that the then-Attorney General Edward Levy was asked what his opinion on the constitutionality of requiring certain affirmative obligation on the state, and he was quick to tell Congress in those hearings that indeed, they could not.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Alston, would you agree that at least some portion of Section 210 simply preempt, as a matter of federal law, some applicable rules and don't pose a Tenth Amendment problem?
Would you agree with that?
That certainly some sections of Section 210 don't have that kind of a--
Mr. Alston: Your Honor, I do agree with that.
I think Section (e) could have been passed separately, and I think that would be severable, so that the small power plants and the cogeneration could be exempted from the Federal Power Act.
I would think that primarily 210 was executed so that the federal government would implement these rules and the states were forced to comply with these rules to see that the utilities followed the federal mandate.
Mr. Lee: --Do you think that Section 210 would significantly hinder states in their ability to perform other functions?
Mr. Alston: I think that they would significantly impair the state of Mississippi and the public service commission in their choices.
Section 210, they have not chosen to go into the area that's mentioned in Section 210.
As a matter of fact, they don't even have authority to go into... in some of the areas that are mentioned in 210, they have no jurisdiction whatsoever over interstate rates.
For example, in purchasing power from a small power plant, that would be an interstate transaction, as I understand the law on it.
The only authority the Mississippi Public Service Commission has would be to... for the regulation of interstate rates.
Mr. Lee: Do you think that Congress could say not only consider these, but what if Congress just said we find that it is essential to regulation of commerce that in ratemaking, state public utilities commissions shall follow the following standard.
And it just says what the standard is.
They don't say consider it, they prescribe it.
Mr. Alston: Do I consider that to be constitutional under the Tenth Amendment?
No, sir, I would not.
If they say you will follow, Mississippi Public Service Commission, you will follow these standards, I would consider that to be an impermissible intrusion on the sovereignty of the state.
Mr. Lee: Well, would you say that a... there are a lot of federal laws that affect the rates that a public utility commission can allow.
Mr. Alston: I'm not familiar of any such law.
The interstate rates that are promulgated by the Mississippi Public Service Commission are promulgated under the authority of the Mississippi Public Service Commision, and I don't know of any federal law that would change--
Mr. Lee: Do you think the federal law could limit the ratemaking activities of the... say in the railroad business?
Mr. Alston: --I would think if there were a finding of Congress that, of course, that intrastate railroads have a significant effect on interstate commerce.
Mr. Lee: I'm just saying now there is such a finding.
Mr. Alston: --Yes, sir, and they preempted that area of regulation.
Mr. Lee: They didn't preempt it; they just said, here is the standard you will use.
Mr. Alston: Under those circumstances, I believe that it would be unconstitutional just because... and I disagree with the Solicitor General on this point... just because the federal government could preempt an area that is in its constitutional power to do--
Mr. Lee: Well, it does, in a sense, preempt.
It says, here is the standard you will use.
Mr. Alston: --If Congress wanted to preempt the area, and take over all of the regulation of all of the utilities in the state of Mississippi, under those circumstances of course they could.
But it's a different thing I think, Your Honor.
I think it touches on sovereignty, the very sovereignty of the state of Mississippi.
The action is directly against the state as a state, it touches I think on attributes of sovereignty.
Mr. Lee: Let me put this slightly different question on what Justice White asked.
Supposing Congress passed a law saying that declining block rates shall be prohibited throughout the United States because we make findings that they use up too much energy?
Could they do that?
Mr. Alston: It's a possibility.
That's not putting an affirmative burden.
Mr. Lee: Well, it's an affirmative prohibition.
Could they say, then, we will require time-of-day rates in all parts of the country because they are in the interest of conservation?
Every state must have time-of-day rates.
And then if you say yes, to that, could they then say they must put them in effect unless they first consider them and decide not to put them in effect?
Would that be constitutional?
Mr. Alston: I don't believe so, Mr. Justice--
Mr. Lee: Then that crosses the line?
Mr. Alston: --Yes, sir, I think that would cross the line and be unconstitutional.
Mr. Lee: Well, what was your answer to Mr. Justice Stevens on there will be time-of-day rates everywhere?
Mr. Alston: Well, I would not--
Mr. Lee: And all the findings that you could possibly think of are made in this statute.
Mr. Alston: --That there will be time-of-day rates across the United States of America.
Mr. Lee: That's it.
And the necessity for it is spelled out in the findings.
Mr. Alston: That perhaps would be constitutional if that was... if they didn't tell the state tax commission how they had to implement the rules or how they had to go about the rules and it was certainly just the statement that everybody had to--
Mr. Lee: Well, suppose that the... let's say that that kind of a requirement would be constitutional.
And suppose a utility commission refused to put in time-of-day rates.
You apparently, if you say that rule was constitutional there must be some enforcement mechanism.
Mr. Alston: --I don't know of any enforcement.
Mr. Lee: How about the Solicitor General's Testa v. Katt reliance?
There, certainly, the federal government prescribed a rule of decision and said a state court had to follow it.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, I don't think Testa v. Katt applies at all in this case.
As I read the case, I see it is that a state court simply cannot discriminate in a federal cause of action if they hear state causes of action under the same cause.
Of course, the statute that we're talking about goes much further.
The statute that is before the Court today, it first is an administrative agency, it is not a court, to start off with.
This is a legislative functioning, it's ratemaking, it's legislative in Mississippi, and these are affirmative burdens placed on the Mississippi Public Service Commission.
That's a far cry from what Testa v. Katt is being cited for.
Secondly, it would seem to me that certainly, the public service commission wouldn't even have jurisdiction over the question of wholesale rates in that connection, and certainly Testa v. Katt would never say that you can force jurisdiction on a court such as this.
There's no doubt that a statute such as we are talking about is attractive to Congress.
I can see where they can say that they do not want to take care of the burden of enforcing it, and put it on the states to enforce.
This is where we say that you run into the questions of Federalism, and this is where we say that we run into trouble.
Mr. Alston, the statute may also be more attractive to many states than the alternative of total federal regulation, wouldn't you say?
Mr. Alston: I don't know whether it would be more attractive or not.
I don't know how to answer that question.
I know it's not more attractive to the state of Mississippi.
I know it's not more attractive to the state of Louisiana, that also has filed an amicus brief in this case.
Mr. Lee: Federal preemption would be preferable, then.
Mr. Alston: No, I'm certainly not saying federal preemption would be preferable.
But I'm making the distinction in opposition to what the Solicitor General.
He said if you could preempt, of course, you have authority to do all of these things against state agencies.
I say that just does not follow.
Certainly, if you preempt that puts the burden on the national government.
Under our system of Federalism I know who to look to for my rate structure.
Mr. Lee: I suggest to you that there is that middle ground of preemption, and instead of taking over the whole regulatory job you just mandate a series of standards that must be followed.
There shall be time-of-day rates everywhere, or, they go right through the list.
They say this is what the rule of the game is.
That doesn't... and if that's constitutional, that doesn't mean the federal government is taking over the regulation.
Mr. Alston: But what it does, Your Honor, I think it runs completely afoul to the three tests of Hodel.
first, they are telling the state as a state what to do.
Mr. Lee: They tell them the rules of the game, that's right.
Mr. Alston: --And they're telling them how to follow it, the rules they've got to play, what they've got to consider.
They've got to let anybody intervene under the rules.
As a matter of fact, the purposes supplement state law, the procedures would override state law.
In addition to that, it involves attributes of state sovereignty.
That's the paradigm of state sovereignty, the ability to pass laws and to pass regulations.
Thirdly, we contend that it significantly impairs the ability of the state--
Mr. Lee: Is a highway patrolman in Mississippi bound to enforce the 55 mile speed limit, or do you know?
Mr. Alston: --Yes, sir, he is.
Of course, that's under a spending clause, under clauses where if we take money from federal funds, we--
Mr. Lee: You mean, except for that, he isn't.
Is that it?
Except for the fact that they are in part supported by the federal government?
What about... is a state officer required to enforce--
Mr. Alston: --Yes, sir, would be to enforce the mile an hour speed limit.
Mr. Lee: --Even if it isn't tied with a grant for federal highways?
Mr. Alston: If it was not tied to the grant to federal highways, I don't know that he would be.
Mr. Lee: Well, if the 55 mile an hour speed limit is one promulgated by Mississippi because it feels that otherwise it would lose its federal highway entitlement--
Mr. Alston: That's true.
Mr. Lee: --Let's assume... I took Justice White's question to be... that if there were no grants involved and this wasn't a quid pro quo, a condition of the grant, if there is a federal statute for 55 mile speed limit for the purpose of conserving gasoline and energy in the national interest, in your view, must Mississippi enforce that or does it have a choice?
Mr. Alston: I don't know if it would be necessary that it enforce that obligation.
I am not sure that you can force a state officer to enforce a federal regulation of that nature.
Mr. Lee: Even if they're related to commerce and the national security?
Even if they have made that claim?
Mr. Alston: And the 55 mile speed limit is applicable to all of them?
I would think then under those circumstances that he would, if the Court please.
Mr. Lee: Would be enforced?
Mr. Alston: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Alston, let's back up a minute.
Doesn't your public service commission feel itself bound by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution?
Mr. Alston: I think we all are bound by the Due Process Clause.
Mr. Lee: So that's... so it's not absolutely free.
Mr. Alston: That is absolutely so.
We are bound by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
And the public service commission--
Mr. Lee: I hear you talking about mandamus.
Do you have mandamus in your state laws?
Mr. Alston: --Yes, sir.
Mr. Lee: Right now.
Mr. Alston: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lee: So that's not anything new, either, is it?
Mr. Alston: Mandamus is an old remedy, if the Court please, that we have followed for a long time.
Mr. Lee: I thought so.
And it would apply against the public service commission under the right state of facts.
Mr. Alston: And under the right state of facts, they could.
Mr. Lee: And without this provision you read from the report.
Mr. Alston: Mandamus would apply if the public service commission did not comply with administerial duties in doing certain things; the writ of mandamus may just apply.
In conclusion, I just wanted to state that certainly, it's no question the government recognizes that these mandates are forced on state's estates.
Certainly, the right to make the laws of the state of Mississippi, certainly the right to promulgate the regulations of the state of Mississippi, is an attribute of sovereignty.
That is the attribute of sovereignty.
We further contend that certainly, this impairs, the Act impairs the ability of the state of Mississippi to structure its integral operations in area of traditional functions, and this is indeed a traditional function.
Chief Justice Burger: We will resume there at 1:00 o'clock.
Mr. Lee, do you have rebuttal?
ORAL ARGUMENT OF REX E. LEE, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS -- Rebuttal
Mr. Lee: Two brief matters.
First of all, the FERC regulations were promulgated in February of 1980.
Second, and finally, aside from whatever this Court's decision in National League of Cities and Towns v. Usery, may mean in another context, we simply submit that it should not apply whereas here, you have a true example of cooperative Federalism, where Congress is sharing some of its authority with the states in the interest of both federal and state government and out of plea in response to the request of the states.
And that, at a minimum, must be what this Court's articulation of a balancing test, both in National League of Cities and Towns and also in Hodel, means.
With regard to Titles I and III, Congress clearly could have set the rates if it had chosen to do so.
What an anomaly it would be if the Tenth Amendment were to become the vehicle for preventing Congress from responding to state pleas for flexibility and experimentation in the perceived interest of both federal and state governments to give states a larger role in that particular governmental function.
With regard to Section 210, Mr. Alston distinguished Testa v. Katt on the ground that no state functions were displaced.
Really, they haven't been here, either.
The states are given several options as to what they can do, but they are not required to bring into existence any new entity of government.
They are not required to have any of their existing public service commissions perform any functions that they are not now performing.
The obligation imposed by Section 210 and the implementing regulations can be performed by simply entertaining disputes before appropriate adjudicatory entities.
And that does not mean that any new entity must be brought into existence.
That point is made, for example, with respect to Nebraska, which has no public utility commission with authority to set rates.
In Nebraska, presumably, that responsibility can be performed simply by entertaining that kind of suit before the courts.
And that, at a very minimum, is what Testa v. Katt says.
And in that respect, Testa v. Katt is indistinguishable, that states are simply required to observe a federal rule of decision that is prescribed by the federal government but to be observed in state proceedings.
Mr. Lee: In that respect, you analogize it, I suppose, to the 55 mile an hour hypothetical that we proposed.
Mr. Lee: Yes.
And clearly, Mr. Chief Justice, if the federal government has the authority under the Spending Clause to impose that kind of an obligation on the states, then clearly, under its--
Mr. Lee: Would that be purely under the Spending Clause, or under the Commerce Clause?
Mr. Lee: --Well, the Spending Clause or the Commerce Clause.
Then clearly, if you take into account the kind of balancing and recognition of the comparative weights of federal and state interests, particularly where in many instances, in the view of many states in this case, they are identical, then Congress certainly, in light of that balancing approach, should have that kind of flexibility.
And if it has that kind of power under the Taxing and Spending and the Commerce Clauses over a 55 mile an hour speed limit, then clearly, under its powers over national security it should have the flexibility to deal in as cooperative Federalism approach as it has in 1978.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Solicitor General, are you disturbed at all by the breadth of the Standing Clauses in this statute?
Clauses that provide standing for, in one section, any consumer of electricity, which means every citizen, really; and in another section, standing for any person providing attorney's fees and other reasonable expenses?
A field day for lawyers, at least.
Are there other federal statutes that have gone that far in changing the state rules of standing before regulatory commissions, or courts?
Mr. Lee: Well, of course, those are problems that will have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis as those matters come before the state.
Since most of the proceedings are going to be in state court, it is not the Article III case or controversy requirement that will apply, but rather, state rules.
And in my view, they're governed by state law.
Chief Justice Burger: Thank you, gentlemen, the case is submitted.

domain: law


Good afternoon, YouthMundees!
At YouthMundus, we aim to not only be a platform for music, film and global change, but for the artists and global changemakers who create them. Our Artist Spotlight series aims to create a space for discovery of new, budding global talent, while simultaneously offering you an exclusive glimpse into their creative process.
In this week’s edition, we’re extremely excited to feature Yuyu Kitamura, an emerging Japanese actor and writer based out of New York City!
Born into the bustling financial city of Hong Kong, Yuyu Kitamura is no stranger to the hustle of a big city. Having spent most of her adolescent life in a sprawling metropolis, Yuyu’s educational transition to New York University’s prestigious acting program only helped her hone and establish her personal and artistic identity: “Figuring out my identity while simultaneously bettering my artistry was so exciting.”
Yuyu’s exploration into her unique cultural identity continues to persist: “Even though I am Japanese, I don’t feel fully Japanese since I spent a lot of my upbringing in Hong Kong. But I’m not Chinese, and my mind thinks in English. I’m a cultural potluck!” It is with her unique international lens that she hopes to influence the modern American TV and Film industry.
Since her recent graduation from NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, Yuyu has acted in a variety of independent shorts, worked alongside companies like Kiehl’s, and recorded scripted podcasts. She is currently in the process of writing her first feature film.
What inspires you and your creative process?
I’m inspired by writing and performing unique stories. Whether they are about people, experiences or certain communities that aren’t portrayed often. When we bring those stories forward and highlight them, we are acknowledging that it matters.
Looking back, the times I’ve felt the most creatively empowered and proud of my ideas have been when I felt immense emotions. I think that is when I unlock an idea that’s been sitting in my head or feel that there’s enough to begin. I like to drive my work from how I feel because those are the moments where I realize how passionate or inspired I am.
What is the connection between your art and social justice?
I think that art is very personal. It’s you putting a stamp on how you feel about a topic, theme, issue whether you realise it or not. What you offer to the world matters. It has weight. That being said, I want to develop those two circles deeper and I think it goes hand in hand with understanding yourself and your values.
Being Asian, I recognise that the strides made by our Asian actors before us have paved the way in the industry. They walked so we could run and continue running. As my acting career continues, I aim to one day write, produce and star in a piece that exemplifies my artistry and social issues.
What inspired you to pursue acting, writing, and filmmaking? What were the challenges you overcame in this?
I can’t pinpoint an “a-ha!” moment. I just found myself finding real joy in performing. The whole process of being an actor is exciting, and hard.
Writing came out of intimate thoughts and feelings that were never intended to be shared. I never considered myself a ‘writer’. But one summer, I interned at a company and met an amazing, kind and smart woman who became someone I highly look up to. She encouraged me to publish my poetry and fast forward a couple weeks and my book was on Amazon. ‘Circles and Lines’ by y.k was the first time I felt extremely vulnerable as an artist. These poems were never meant to be shared but the process of publishing a book outweighed my ego. It was so rewarding because the point of putting together that book wasn’t to make any sort of profit. It was to show myself that I can do anything if I truly wanted to and now I can say that I published my first book at the age of 20. Since then, I’ve been dabbling with other forms of writing. I hope to finish writing my first feature this season.
What’s been the most rewarding part of being an artist for you? Do you have any advice for future artists?
The most rewarding part is meeting so many talented artists. It’s amazing to have met writers, actors, producers who have a vision and aim to bring great content into the world. From being on set, to meeting others through mutual friends, it has truly been a blessing to learn from them just by being around them.
Advice? Be kind and do what EXCITES you. Hopefully you’re doing something that already makes you happy in some sense, but life gets more interesting when you do things that excite you.
Do you have any advice on how we can do our part in supporting emerging international artists like you?
This has been one of the hardest questions that I have been constantly thinking about during this pandemic. Most people probably don’t know much about the international artist experience (and it’s okay to not know) but there’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding staying in America. I can’t speak for others, but it hurts when I think I have to leave New York, because my visa is up as I’m not American.
Over the five years I’ve lived in New York, I’ve learned that many people react when the word “visa” or “foreign” come up. There seems to be a negative connotation attached to being international. The number of times I’ve had people ask me “How is your English so good?” or “I thought you were American!” It’s close minded to think that or assume that because of the way I look, I should sound a certain way.
Be open to collaboration. Be kind.
Thank you for your continuous support and kindness in this extraordinary times.
Lots of love,
Interview by conducted & written by Veronica Velez


text:
There was an obstacle before Naomi, Ruth and Boaz to overcome in court if they were to see Boaz redeem them from poverty and marry Ruth. The one man in the way did not love Ruth, but Boaz did and prevailed.
Naomi gives Ruth clear instructions on how to approach Boaz to gain Ruth’s legal opportunity for Boaz to marry her, in this Naomi is wise and clear. Virtuous Ruth obeys and finds Boaz honorable and determined.
With very little means of support, Ruth gleans grain in the fields and by God’s hand comes to the fields of Boaz. Aware of Ruth’s kindness to Naomi, he pours out support and blessings on Ruth, energizing Naomi.
The story of Ruth begins under the shadow of famine, which pressed this family to seek bread outside of the Promised Land. This famine was only the beginning of their sorrows, but God had not abandoned them.

domain: library


text:
First Look: Evoke Vaporizer
The creators of the Evoke wanted to make a newly designed vaporizer in hopes of getting something that they were not previously getting out of the vaporizers they were using. What's so different about this vape? You'll have to read more to find out!
The Evoke vaporizer is made by Loto Labs out of Redwood City, California. They are made up of four guys who come from different backgrounds in science, marketing, engineering, and even the arts! Additionally, they all happen to be fans of ice hockey, which is what brought them all together. Thus, they combined their efforts and unique talents to create the best vaporizer they could come up with.
Evokes are made for dry blends, liquids and concentrates, which is perfect for anyone looking for versatility! Evoke is manufactured in the United States, and has a very unique design. It also has a unique mouthpiece and valve system designed to adjust your airflow and to prevent leaks. The battery for the Evoke is made out of environmentally friendly Lithium Iron Phosphate, which is said to provide consistent voltage and will not overheat. The wicks on the Evoke are easy to remove, clean and re-use and they claim the coil will not wear out and break.
So how does it work?
The Evoke is controlled by a micro-controller mounted on a printed circuit board which is enabled by Bluetooth. Like the Crafty vaporizer by Storz & Bickel, the Evoke will be able to be controlled through your smartphone to customize your temperature settings, manage firmware updates, and monitor your battery life.
The Evoke does not utilize conduction or convection heating, but rather induction heating. This will be the first vaporizer to use induction as a method of heating!
If you're not familiar with what induction heating is, Loto Labs has a great explanation for it:
"Induction works by passing alternating current through a copper coil, creating a magnetic field. The Evoke vaporizer uses this magnetic field to heat a special metal wick, which vaporizes material. Using induction this way gives the Evoke advantages in versatility, durability, precision and practicality."
Some members of our team were able to check out the Evoke in real life at the Cup in Denver this April. Check out some of the pictures below!
Are you as excited about the new Evoke as we are? Let us know what you think in the comments!
Featured img via Loto Labs

domain: design


text:
Family of waterfall tragedy Scot hit out at lack of warnings
THE family of a Scottish man feared dead after being swept away in a Canadian river have questioned the lack of warning signs at the site of the incident.
Andrew Barrie, 50, was in a stretch of river described as “treacherous with strong
Ronald Legare, 74, and Jean Legare, 71, who were with him, died in the tragedy, after their small inflatable dinghy got into trouble and the three were swept over a waterfall.
Mr Barrie’s 16-year-old son, Andrew junior, managed to swim to shore as his father was swept over Cascade Falls.
His wife, Carol, was also on the holiday.
Search and rescue officials in British Columbia say the canyon in the Kettle River, near Grand Forks, close to the United States border, is dangerous and claims a number of lives each year.
The group of friends, who were “tubing” on the river, were supposed to come ashore before reaching the canyon.
However, unseasonably high rains in late spring and early summer have led to British
Columbia rivers running higher and faster than normal, and the holiday-makers were unable to stop.
Officials say eight lives were lost in rivers in the state last weekend, and officials now plan to put up warning signs.
However, Mr Barrie’s family indicated they should have been in place earlier.
“There are no signs anywhere indicating the possible dangers and we had no concerns whatsoever on being on the water that day,” they said in a statement.
“It is with great sadness and grief that we can confirm that Andrew Barrie, of Balloch, is missing, presumed drowned.
“What had started as a beautiful, peaceful float on the river with friends who knew the river well turned to tragedy with the loss of three lives.
“The river is normally calm and was used by other people on the same day.”
The family said the two bodies recovered so far were of local people who had lived in the area for ten years.
Officials said that, although the canyon is dangerous, the river running up to it has been safe in previous years.
A spokeswoman for the British Columbia coroner’s office, said: “They have had two times as much rainfall as usual, so rivers are running much higher and faster than would be expected in July. Because of that, the current swept them right past where they should have got off. They should never have been in the canyon at all.”
She added: “We are now thinking about putting a big warning in that part of the country, to let people know the rivers are running high and fast.”
Barry Savitskoff, of Grand Forks Search and Rescue, said: “The canyon takes a lot of lives. Every year we’re here pulling somebody out of the river that’s deceased from drowning.”
The news has shocked Mr Barrie’s community in Balloch, West Dunbartonshire.
Andrew MacGregor, charge-hand at The Dog House pub in the town, said: “It is a shock to everyone in the area. He was really well liked. Everybody had a lot of time for him.”
Search for a job
Search for a car
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Tuesday 21 May 2013
Temperature: 7 C to 17 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: North west
Temperature: 3 C to 12 C
Wind Speed: 23 mph
Wind direction: West

domain: news


Nilan's had a successful weekend of poppin out another kid. Here's Brex with his little brother Stevie
and I lock eyes, the rest of the world seems to fade away. The dude in the blue shirt is named Gary grant. He played trumpet on thriller. The high F#'s I wrote for him for this session were harder to hit than playing on Thriller. He's smiling cus he nailed them. @ladygaga
is a great conduct. She brings the hype and the inspiration
You can go ahead and add conducting to the long list of her skills. We had the orchestra coming in. Music prepared. Then decided to add orchestra to 1 more song, with 1 hour before the start time. We wrote this orchestra arrangement in an hour. With pencil and paper. I literally wore thru 4 pencils. Have yet to come across anyone that can pull that off these days... And it sounds EPIC. Wait til u hear it. @ladygaga
These people are all soooo hard working & dedicated to their crafts. A real honor to be friends with these people!!
Yea, what he said ...
I think I can tell you all that I wrote over a 1/3 of this soundtrack with my dear friends....
And who could forget this old chestnut. Me and @sagethegemini
before he learned all the gospel chords and stopped calling me...😏
I quit music 7 weeks ago and became a construction worker. I'm coming out of retirement now. Back to the studio..
This song is tight. Nick and I made this sucker
I got to close out the 'Joanne era' with LG by doing this. She told me she wanted a remix of Joanne. I pulled up the original and wrote the chords down for myself.
I thought this would be the most fitting form for the song, to let the lyrics and her vocals shine thru. So we walked in the next room, told ben the plan, he hit record and we performed it. 1 take. No discussing it, no redoing it, no tweaking it.
These days, making music in one take is a lost art. Artists don't have that skill set, because they don't need to. Technology is so good, you can always redo stuff.
Gaga is real deal.


Are you of the mindset that VR is the future and not a short-term diversion like 3D? Great! Carry on pretending it won't all blow over by 2018 by using the latest tool from Futuremark, which has released a benchmarking tool to more accurately tell if your Currys/PC World rig can run at anything near the high-end level of today's VR experiences.
Its VRMark suite goes further than the basic checker offered by Oculus which simply sees if you've got enough RAM and a graphics card that wasn't put in by Dell in the factory in 2009. There's an Experience mode to show how things might run on your existing PC monitor, running live VR demos to give users an idea of the clarity their machine might handle.
There are two vague compatibility checks -- the Orange Room to just see if stuff will work at all, plus a Blue Room suite of checks that'll kick in when being run upon something very expensive and assembled by someone who knew what they were doing, with the latter demonstrating the very highest-end of graphics settings.
And the good news for men who like sharing numbers to see who's best is... there will be a score. A number that says how good your PC is and will tell the world that you plugged the graphics card into the right hole. [VRMark via Engadget]


text:
My incredible over 90-year-old new neighbor.
I couldn’t believe her age when she told me… early 90’s and counting!? She looked so happy, healthy and beautiful, so I had to ask her, “What’s your secret?” With a big smile on her face she said: SMILING. Isn’t that easy? And cheap? Forget about plastic surgery. Smile and follow the advice below and you’ll be in for the ride of your life!
The 5 regrets of the dying (that my neighbor doesn’t seem to have – not that she’s dying)
A few years back I read a story that made me very, very sad: “Regrets of the dying”, by Bronnie Ware, a nurse who took care of patients with just a few weeks left to live. They shared with her their main regrets, and she put them together first in an article, and later in a book. She now travels the world speaking about this experience.
I’m sharing this with you because what you’re about to read can lead you to a life of happiness instead of regrets. So without further ado…
- I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
These people felt there were many dreams that went unfulfilled. Why? Because of the choices they made, or better said, the ones they didn’t make.
I always say I can’t live with the “What if …” It’s a thought that kills me, so I end up trying everything. I prefer to regret having done something and “failing”, that not having done it and not knowing what would’ve happened.
I have a great story about this! Back in 2000, when I met who later became my husband, I was living in Seville, Spain, and he was in Los Angeles. To everyone around me, it was crazy to leave my family and everything behind to move to another continent for a man that I barely knew. But I had to know if he was the one. I had to try! And guess what? We spent ten years of our lives together. Ten years of love, of learning a new language (I thought I spoke pretty good English prior to moving here, but I couldn’t understand anyone or vice versa!). Ten years of getting to know American culture and Los Angeles, a city I now adore. And best of all, my son Theo. See? I’m over the moon with my choice. What if I hadn’t tried?
- I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.
People regret not having spent more time with their family and friends.
So true! And that’s why I constantly promote the importance of taking breaks through my concierge business. Nowadays it seems to be natural to work 24/7. Be passionate about your career, yes. But be passionate about your life too! Work to live and not the other way around.
- I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.
I love this one! The “problem” with putting it into practice is that you have to be 100 % honest. A while ago I committed to do it at all times. I promised myself I’d never lie again, not even a small lie (not that I was a big liar – but you understand). It’s hard in the beginning, but so worth it!! It becomes an addiction. When you realize you’re living up to your word, it’s one of the greatest feelings you can have.
- I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.
Are you guilty of this one? It’s so hard these days, being so busy and all of that. But like everything else in life, it’s a matter of priorities… about spending our 24 hours a day on what’s most valuable.
- I wish that I had let myself be happier.
Comfort and fear of change let people to say this. I’m a non-conformist by nature, and my favorite sport is to laugh out loud. I’m not preoccupied about what people may think. I let myself go and express whatever comes.
I’ve reflected a lot about this article and about death. Talking about it doesn’t freak me out anymore. On the contrary it makes me appreciate life even more. So much in fact, that if I were to die tomorrow (although I’d prefer not to!), I’d do it from a happy and peaceful place. No 5 regrets, not even 1.
I very much hope that you’re enjoying your life and that you have a wonderful month of June. Here is your generous action for today: share this newsletter with someone. You don’t know this now, but you could change someone’s day, or who knows, someone’s destiny.
Please let me know if I can help you with anything. As a personal concierge, I can free up your time so you can do all the things we’ve been talking about. There are no limits, only the ones that you set for yourself!
With summer excitement,

domain: literature


text:
Favourited 45 times
We are a Dutch (Simone 30y) /German (Salah 27y) couple (with Hank the cat) living in a valley at the beginning of the Pyrénées-Oriëntales outside a beautiful little village named Corsavy (350 inhabitants). We moved into a beautiful Mas (country house) with 3 hectares of land consisting out of a mountain hill, a river, and a big forest. If you search well enough in our jungle, you'll be able to find plenty of fruit trees, berry's, nut trees and, if the season is right, mushrooms. We have our own water source, which (when it runs > the wild pig's tend to mess up the water pipes, they love having mud baths) provides crystal clear mountain water. The Mas itself consists out of the main house, a separate room and the gite (which all need a little bit of TLC). And we must mention that we have a pool (only in summer) :)
We started our journey in our self-build campervan, with as main goal traveling to Iran. Along the way, we became more and more convinced that we wanted to create a sustainable life for ourselves. When this opportunity arose, we decided to take it and to head into the wild french mountains.
Here we are trying to transform this old Mas and land into something prosperous, so we can create a place where people can be at ease and enjoy the simple life. Come and help us fulfill our dreams :)
We are looking forward to meeting you!
Cooking / shopping
Help with Eco project
Help in the house
You'll be staying with a well-traveled couple in a remote beautiful spot in the Pyrenean mountains. Sharing stories, knowledge and fun times under the Catalonian sun.
At the moment we have several projects running:
- clearing land
- preparing ground for farming
- general maintenance
- building a chicken shed
- painting the main house and gite
- renovating the gite (wallpaper, painting, design)
- help with household chores
- making firewood
- creative input
We would love to have help from people who have experience with gardening and building. Especially with construction and woodwork since we are starting to build the chicken shed, the greenhouse and the renovation of the gite.
But even if you don't have any experience in this field, there's so much else to do that we definitely can find something for you.
We think that everyone works best according to their own schedule. We are asking for roughly 25 hours of work a week.
Mostly we go with the flow of what feels best and with what the weather permits. Of course, you can spend and organize your free-days or free-time as you wish (there is soo much to explore here!).
English, German, Dutch, French
We have plenty of green space to put up your tent or to park your campervan (<6m). If you don't have your own tent, you'll get a shared room in the house with your own bathroom (hot shower). In winter you can stay with us in the house. We have a washing machine, so the laundry is easy done.
We will eat and cook our vegetarian meals together. Breakfast you can have on your own or join with us.
The mas is situated in the mountains, which provides plenty of opportunities to roam around and discover the area. Corsavy is at hiking distance to the Canigou (2784m), 40km from the coast and very close to Spain.
If you like the outdoors this is the place to be. You can go cycling (we have 2 mountain bikes available) hiking, rafting, and climbing. There are plenty of old medieval towns around with old fortresses and monasteries. There are thermal (healing) baths in Amelie Les Bains (the closest bigger town) and every saturday there is a nice beautiful alternative market in Céret. Perpignan is reachable by bus (very cheap) from Arle-sur-Tech.
Limited internet access
We have pets
We are smokers
Maximum 5 hours a day, 5 days a week
These are extra optional ratings when members leave feedback. The average rating left for each option is displayed.
Accuracy of profile:

domain: travel


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ATF in a hydraulic oil car. BTDT?
I can't comment on the later pumps, but the PO of my '84 5KS (Dad) was using ATF in the hydraulic system for at least 10 years, and the pump did not leak. In fact, the pump only failed shortly after I replaced the leaking rack and changed back to Pentosin, and it still wasn't leaking, just no pressure.
I've never really given this much thought before, since the list consensus is that ATF/PS fluid is bad in Pentosin cars, but does the theory that ATF/PS fluid "rots the seals" make any sense? I did the pump rebuild, and the EXTREMELY expensive O rings I used didn't look like they were made of special rubber, they just looked like O rings. Perhaps I'm completely off base here, but doesn't the reason ATF/PS fluid shouldn't be used in a Pentosin car probably have to do with the differing viscosities of the fluids, rather than any seal rotting properties? I'd bet that the vast majority of cars where ATF/PS "rotted the seals" were already leaking when the extra fluid was added, otherwise, why would you need to add fluid?
There must be people on this list who have had the seals on their pump go bad even though they were using Pentosin. After my pump rebuild attempt was unsuccessful (bad pressure relief valve I think) I installed several used pumps. The first two pumps leaked from the front seals, and both of them arrived with a bit of Pentosin still left in them, so I don't think the wrong fluid was the problem.
Preparing for the e-mail avalanche,


May 21, 2019
Representative Justin Amash (R-Michigan)–a detractor of the president who has weighed a run against him in 2020—has become the first GOP congressman to say that Trump “engaged in impeachable conduct,” based on the findings detailed in the Mueller report, The Washington Post reported on May 18.
The Michigan lawmaker shared his conclusions in a lengthy Twitter thread on Saturday after reviewing the full report on Russian interference into the 2016 election and obstruction of justice by POTUS.
- Attorney General [Bill] Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
- President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
- Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
- Few members of Congress have read the report.”
Amash, who has served in Congress since 2011, said that the AG’s deceit in his four-page summary and press conference amounted to smoke and mirrors—noting: “Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.”
However, he said, “Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” Amash wrote.
In fact, Amash said, “Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”
Impeachment, he noted, “which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.”
Late Saturday, the Post reported, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel released a statement rejecting Amash’s comments: “It’s sad to see Congressman Amash parroting the Democrats’ talking points on Russia. The only people still fixated on the Russia collusion hoax are political foes of President Trump hoping to defeat him in 2020 by any desperate means possible.”
As for the president, himself, on May 19, he posted the following comment to Twitter: Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy. If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, ‘composed’ by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump… he would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION … Anyway, how do you Obstruct when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!”
According to the Post, “Amash’s full-throated condemnation of Barr, Trump and his colleagues could give Democrats more ammunition to continue pursuing their [own] investigations.”
Research contact: @washingtonpost


text:
September 14, 2017
Most people know him as a politician, but the face of our fifty-dollar note, Sir Āpirana Ngata,...
September 12, 2017
We are delighted to have Nadine Millar (Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi) as our guest editor for Te Wiki o...
September 10, 2017
Ko tēnei Te Wiki o te Reo Māori! All week, our guest editor Nadine Millar (Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi)...


Providers should pay special attention to what happens in the Senate tomorrow
Tomorrow's the big day.
All across this nation, voters will go to the polls to elect three dozen governors and every member of the U.S. House of Representatives— in addition to thousands of state, county and local officials.
But these are relatively trivial matters compared to the contests providers will really need to monitor. That's because the various U.S. Senate-race outcomes could potentially change the way many operators do business.
With momentum growing by the hour, it appears Republicans are poised to take control of the Senate. And in the very possible event that this occurs, the GOP will control both chambers of Congress for the first time in two decades. The obvious implication is that such a result will almost certainly lead to gridlock. But that's a superficial reading at best.
Should Republicans take control of both chambers, you can bet your last dollar that Obamacare will be targeted for defeat. The GOP-controlled House has already passed 30 measures that would repeal part or all of the Affordable Care Act. It's a certainty the same would also start happening in the senior chamber.
You can also safely bet that President Obama would veto such legislation, once it reaches his desk.
So if Obamacare is to be overturned in the next two years, you'll probably have judges to thank or blame. That is, unless Republicans can achieve a veto-proof 60-member majority. That outcome appears to be a long shot, but stranger things have occurred. And should it happen, we can say bye-bye to the ACA. Gone will be accountable care organizations, the law's incentives and options for expanding home- and community-based care, and demonstration projects that target chronic care coordination, dual eligibles and nursing home quality. And as for that little matter of mandated health insurance for employees? Kaput.
But again, that's only if the GOP hits 60 votes.
However, with even a simple Senate majority, Republican lawmakers will be in a position to impose their will. So things like a higher minimum wage, restrictions on financial institutions, cleaner water rules and other Obama-agenda items would almost certainly be squashed.
More significant is that the government could soon be shutting down again. It's all but guaranteed that a GOP-controlled Congress would be approving budgets with priorities and provisions the White House detests. Faced with the prospect or going along or rejecting such spending plans, it's a safe bet the president would choose the latter option. So if you thought sequesters were a nuisance last time around, just wait.
The Center for Responsive Politics predicts that almost $4 billion will be spent on this year's midterm elections. Considering what providers might have to deal with on Wednesday, it may be hard to argue that the money was well spent.
John O'Connor is McKnight's Editorial Director.


Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
The Republican party deserves to fall apart after embracing the hate and distortion of the TP. I hope that the Senate rejects anything short of a "clean" bill that takes care of the budget for at least a half-year. I, for one, am sick and tired of the constant "crisis" that the extremists of the GOP is always forcing on the voters. We are going straight into the much more dangerous debt ceiling "crisis", anyway.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.
Feels Like: 49°
Feels Like: 60°
Feels Like: 50°
Vote for your favorite carols in our bracket showdown.
Download the Courier & Press mobile app for iOS and Android
Education news and resources for parents, students and teachers
Like us on Facebook for lively discussions of the latest news
Colleen Thomas' inside scoop on UE sports
Reports made to Evansville Police since May 2011.
App for iOS and Android works like a smarter weather radio
Just make your picks for each game of the season for a chance to win a trip.
C&P initiative highlights positive news in the community
Find the lowest gas prices around the Tri-State
Share the special moments of your life.
Need a new car? We have a new site to help you out.


text:
Are you ready for the Craftsmen’s Classic Fall Art & Craft Festival? This exciting festival has been a favorite in Roanoke for many years! Hundreds of craftspeople and artists from around the country will be on hand to display their delightful exhibits. Some will even demonstrate their amazing talents for festival visitors. There will be a wide variety of artistic styles represented, ranging from modern to traditional!
Craftsmen’s Classic Fall Art & Craft Festival has been voted one of the top 100 art shows in the nation. It is a winner of the prestigious Sunshine Artist “100 Best” awards. It has been voted #1 in Southwest Virginia and in the top 10 in the state overall. It has also been named a “top 100” show in the nation by Art Fair Source Book, and a “top 20” event for Southeast Tourism Society. With this kind of endorsement, you know you’re in for a spectacular show!
Time, Place, and Admission
The festival is set for October 11 through October 13, 2019. The hours are 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Friday, October 11; 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, October 12; and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday, October 13. The location is Berglund Center, which is located at 710 Williamson Road, Roanoke, VA 24016. Admission is free with a food donation to Feeding America Southwest Virginia.
You might also like: Have Some Fun At This Inflatable Playground
Berglund Auto Group Makes Satisfied Customers
Berglund Auto Group is one of Southwestern Virginia’s premier automotive groups, with locations in Roanoke, Salem, Bedford, and Lynchburg. We offer great new and used vehicles, quality parts and accessories, financing, and an excellent service center. The variety of our inventory is unmatched, and we are well known for fabulous service from our knowledgeable staff. We pride ourselves on our dedication to our local community, and we are pleased with Southwestern Virginia’s enthusiastic response. Come out to see us, and we’re sure you’ll become one of our happy customers!

domain: hobby


text:
It's been a while since we checked in on Jane Orient, leader of the fringe-right Association of American Physicians and Surgeons who is one of the main purveyors of COVID misinformation at WorldNetDaily. Unsurprisingly, the misinformation is continuing. In her March 21 column, Orient was complaining that medical experts don't think anecdotal stories don't hold quite the same weight as actual medical research:
Even if you have had COVID, and some restrictions in your area have been lifted at least temporarily, life is definitely not normal, especially in medicine. We live under an increasingly authoritarian regime that falsely claims to "follow the science," but is really based on fear.
Warning: Much of what follows is "anecdotal," scorned by the "evidence-based medicine" establishment. We can no longer believe our eyes and ears. Of course, a single or a few observations must be replicated before we change medical practice or societal policy – unless they support a politically correct objective. But what to do in the meantime? Wait for a study that will probably never be done because the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will not fund it?
Or at least listen to our patients and their associates?
For COVID, the dogma is that repurposed old drugs are dangerous and don't work, that vaccines are all "safe and effective," and that measures never shown capable of containing an already widespread respiratory virus must be followed under pain of professional death (delicensure).
In her April 18 column, Orient clung to the idea that everything should simply return to normal as if an pandemic that killed a million Americans never happened:
It is not normal to wear a face mask and stay six feet away from other human beings. As soon as the pressure is removed, the students, even at a woke universities, are maskless and interacting normally – talking, laughing, hugging. Their natural immune systems are functioning normally.
It is not normal to stay locked indoors. Without police coercion, people will go out when they think it essential or safe.
It is not normal to worry constantly about a virus that in most people is no worse than the flu. Once the daily case counts and death statistics stop, people may believe their eyes and ears telling them that most of us are OK … unless those making the evaluation have been turned into obsessive-compulsive germophobes.
It is not normal for people to bully or exclude or malign family members and friends who choose not to take a novel experimental injection. That takes constant propaganda portraying the refusers as lifelong lepers. But once the mortar of human relations is weakened, will the masonry crumble?
It's also not normal for right-wing activists like Orient to try and discredit medical experts by fearmongering about vaccines and other researched treatments sinply to advance a political narrative -- dishonesty that resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of people. She's also lying by continuing to smear vaccines as a "novel experimental injection" and, later, "a massive, uncontrolled, non-consented experiment. ; the vaccines have been fully approved by the FDA.
Orient's May 11 column complained that the COVID misinformation she has been peddling was being called out:
Today, "mainstream media" are mostly owned by a few conglomerates, who all seem to be on board with the current Narrative about this "war" on COVID.
We can tell something about the Agenda from the accounts Twitter has banned: views of election fraud that favors Democrats; evidence of corrupt dealings with foreign governments by certain highly placed officials, say, from Hunter Biden's laptop; and information contradicting the official narrative on COVID-19.
With COVID, disinformation is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). Skepticism about masks and lockdowns, information about early treatment with cheap, repurposed drugs, or anything that might lead to "vaccine hesitancy" are anathema.
Who writes the message? According to Dr. Scott Atlas, who was briefly a member of President Trump's COVID Task Force, in his book "A Plague upon Our House," the nationwide message was dictated by Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx and Robert Redfield, even over the president's objection. Was it "the Science"? Dr. Atlas immersed himself in the deluge of scientific articles and brought copies to meetings. They were ignored. Birx, he writes, relied on unreliable or outdated data to dictate "mitigation" measures. No one else was willing to confront her. The deadly results of useless lockdowns were not of interest.
Who is Deborah Birx to have the power to destroy Americans' livelihood and lives? Most of her work had concerned the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Orient didn't mention that Atlas has no specific expertise in epidemiology, infectious diseases, or virology and dubioiusly pushed for herd immunity to COVID despite the fact that it has now killed 1 million Americans. She also ranted against Pfizer's COVID treatment Paxlovid and suggested that the old right-wing standby drug ivermectin is somehow better:
Pfizer has so far spent $2.8 million on the commercial and expects to earn $22 billion from Paxlovid sales for 2022, paid for by taxpayers.
What would happen if Twitter allowed compare-and-contrast information for Paxlovid vs. ivermectin, which share a common mechanism of action? Number of studies: three for Paxlovid, 82 for ivermectin; number of patients studied, about 5,000 vs. more than 129,000; duration of experience with use, months vs. decades (ivermectin was approved in 1987); number of patients who have taken drug, thousands vs. billions.
But, such a comparison might be bad for Pfizer's sales.
Orient makes sure not to comment on how many of those ivermectin studies were of high quality -- an important point, since a lot of them aren't. She also linked to an anonymously run website -- which may be secretly run by her AAPS -- purporing to document those results, which doesn't instill confidence.

domain: medical


Numerous details are secret but if a United States president were ever to order a nuclear strike, we know this: the order would be transmitted to the crew who would fire the missiles in a message 150 characters long - about the same as a tweet. "It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before", he wrote on Twitter. He then added: "Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!".
Starting on Wednesday night, the Republican president retweeted a series of Twitter posts related to his Democratic predecessor, starting with one by John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations and Fox News contributor, who said the United States is at risk because of Obama.
Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, said Trump's threat to North Korea "is reckless and shows a serious lack of judgment".
Nagasaki Mayor Urges Nations: Abandon Nuclear Programs
I appeal to all governments to follow your example and intensify their efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. In a speech, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed his commitment to "realizing a world without nuclear weapons".
That was the year the president, who at the time was just a businessman of course, appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and talked about what he'd do if he was commander-in-chief. Trump on Tuesday threatened "fire and fury" if North Korea made more threats to the U.S. And North Korea's military said it was examining plans for attacking Guam. More importantly, though, he said that in the event attempts to negotiate were unsuccessful, the USA would have to "do something" about North Korea, a clear allusion to pre-emptive military action. "Let's never forget that", Bolton said in the tweet that Trump retweeted.
Trump's morning statement came amid bipartisan concern over Trump's scaled-up rhetoric about North Korea, which came to a head Tuesday afternoon.
White House deputy adviser Sebastian Gorka dismissed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's reassurances that "Americans should sleep well at night" in response to escalating tensions between the US and North Korea.