text:
§ (1) In section two hundred and ten of the Act of 1952 (Personal relief) for the reference to two hundred and forty pounds there shall be substituted a reference to two hundred and fifty pounds.
§ (2) This section shall not be deemed to have required any change in the amounts deducted or repaid under section one hundred and fifty-seven (Pay as you earn) of the Act of 1952 before the twenty-second day of June, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.—[Mr. Houghton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ The Chairman
I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this new Clause the two new Clauses—(Increase of personal reliefs)—and—(Additional personal relief for unmarried householders).
§ Mr. Houghton
As you have said, Sit Gordon, it would be convenient to consider those two new Clauses with the one I am moving.
§ Mr. Houghton
This new Clause contains a simple proposal to increase the personal allowance for a married man from £240 to £250. It makes no provision for a corresponding increase in the personal allowance of a single person or in the wife's earned income relief.
In the second new Clause we are discussing—(Increase of personal reliefs)—we go further than proposing a relief for a married man. It includes a corresponding increase for the single person and, since the wife's earned income relief is dealt with in Section 210 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, it also covers the corresponding increase in the wife's earned 1181 income relief, the allowance of which is now £140 and which would, under this proposal, become £150.
The last increase in these personal allowances was in 1955, when the personal allowance for a married man was increased from £210 to the present figure of £240, and that of a single person from £120 to £140. It should, however, be pointed out that when these improvements in personal allowances were made the Chancellor of the day modified the reduced rate bands and, by readjustment of reduced rates, took back quite a lot of what he was giving away in increased personal allowances.
The Committee will probably remember that when the Chancellor increased the personal allowances in 1955 he reduced the lower band of taxable income from £100 at the lowest rate to £60 at the lowest rate, and the result was that many people, especially single people, actually paid more tax and not less, even when their personal allowance was increased from £120 to £140.
It is true that these personal allowances have been increased over the last ten years from £180 to £240 in the case of a married man and from £110 to £140 in the case of a single person. Notwithstanding this, the tax liability comes low down the pay scale even today. A single person pays £1 in tax on a wage of £10 a week. A married couple with no children pay 10s. a week tax on a wage of £10 a week, and £1 a week tax on a wage of £12. Wages of £10 a week, or even £12 a week, are below the average wage of industrial workers today, so that the Committee will see that, despite the improvements which have been made in personal allowances and in the reduction of the rates of tax in recent years, Income Tax attacks the pay packet low down.
Indeed, Income Tax becomes payable, in the case of a single person, on pay beyond £180 a year—which is very low—and, in the case of a married couple, on pay beyond £309 a year—which is also very low in the scale of earnings today. If we were to look at these personal allowances in relation to the fall in the value of money, we should discover that these personal reliefs should be very much higher than they are. In terms of pre-war money values, a single person's allowance would be as high 1182 as £280, and a married man's personal allowance would be as high as £506 instead of £140 and £240 respectively as at present.
Of course, there is no principle of taxation which says that personal reliefs shall rise as the value of money falls. All I am doing is to suggest that, despite much that has been said about tax reductions in recent years, the level of taxation is still fairly high in relation to pre-war days. The cost of this proposal is surprisingly high, which shows the large number of people who would be affected by this very modest improvement.
After all, a lift of £10 in personal allowance means that the maximum relief for Income Tax would be £3 17s. 6d. a year. That is a very small amount. It is neither here nor there in terms of the tax paid by a great many people. It would additionally benefit a number of Surtax payers because, as the Committee knows, personal reliefs over and above the single person's allowance are set off against Surtax. Thus, there would be a small additional relief for Surtax payers—which is scarcely the direct intention of our proposal. However, before the Bill finally leaves the House, it may be possible for us to moderate the reliefs which are included already for the Surtax payers.
The large number of people concerned sends up the total cost to the Exchequer considerably. From Answers given to Questions which I asked a few months ago, I judge that the cost of the first new Clause would be £22 million in tax in a full year, while the cost of the second new Clause would be £57 million in a full year, which would bring the total cost of the reliefs proposed to approximately the same amount that the Chancellor is proposing to give to Surtax payers for the years 1961–62 onwards.
Having explained to the Committee what these proposals do and what they would cost, I wish to say a little more about the general background to them. We have three groups of proposed improvements in tax reliefs and personal allowances in connection with this Finance Bill. The first we dealt with very late last Thursday night. Those were the changes which we really hoped the Chancellor would feel able to make, 1183 because they dealt with age exemption, small incomes relief and age relief at a total cost of probably not more than £4 million, which we thought could be met within the general strategy which the Chancellor is deploying in the Bill. However, the Chancellor remained quite firm that he could not make any of the concessions which we sought last Thursday.
How much less able will he be today, therefore, to meet the proposals which we are now making and which will cost not £4 million, but nearly £84 million? That would be about the total cost, reckoning wife's earned income relief as well as married and single personal allowances, as proposed in the Clauses. Later, we shall come to our third batch of proposals, which will deal with a section of secondary reliefs much less costly, but, nevertheless, quite formidable from the Chancellor's point of view.
I am bound to say that this batch of new Clauses is a demonstration against the wholly excessive Surtax reliefs granted in the Bill for operation in 1963, because we still believe that they are excessive if considered on grounds of equity, and misconceived if intended to give a dynamic boost to the economy.
I want to be as conciliatory as possible and to offer to the Chancellor the same operative date for these proposals, if that will help him, as he is giving to the Surtax reliefs. Only a few moments ago I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman protesting that he had not made any reliefs from Surtax yet and that they would not become operative until Surtax for the year became payable on 1st January, 1963. But the Chancellor is overlooking the fact that Surtax payers can begin to spend more of their incomes in the year 1961–62, because they will have less Surtax to pay on 1st January, 1963.
§ Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster) indicated dissent.
§ Mr. Houghton
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is shaking his head so violently that it will fall off in a moment.
§ Mr. Nabarro rose—
§ Mr. Houghton
No. The hon. Member will have to continue to shake for a moment or two longer.
1184 What I am saying is that the prudent Surtax payer saves up to pay Surtax when it becomes due, because he receives the money before the tax becomes payable. If he is a prudent man, as most Surtax payers are—I know that many go to the bank for an overdraft to pay their Surtax, but many save against the day—he will not have to save up so much as before and he will, therefore, have more for spending or investing, more free income.
I offer to the Chancellor that any change in the new Clauses should become operative on a date to coincide with the date of operation of the Surtax reliefs. I know that this would be an enormous promissory note on the Chancellor's budgetary provision in a couple of years, and that it would be a hazardous thing to do, having regard to the general state of the economy, but if the Chancellor can make promissory notes for the Surtax payer, without any assurance that that will be rewarding to the economy, he has no excuse for not making a similar promissory note to people much lower down.
What the Chancellor hopes to get out of his proposals is some tangible additional benefit to the economy. He is putting the admittedly influential and, for the most part, capable and often brilliant people in the Surtax range under a very heavy obligation to the nation. If the Surtax concessions fail in that respect, they will prove to be unjustified, but I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that in making the distinction between those in the Surtax range and those below it the Chancellor is putting forward a proposal carrying disturbing implications.
By concentrating more relief on 400,000 Surtax payers than he will be willing to give to 12 million or 15 million ordinary taxpayers under the new Clauses, he is leaving the great mass of workers who pay tax, but not Surtax, with the feeling that they do not matter, or, at least, that they do not matter as much as their managers, their supervisors, their technicians, their bosses. Perhaps individually, man for man, being a modest chap the ordinary worker would not claim to be the equal of many of the brilliant people in the Surtax range, but collectively the ordinary workers matter as much, and, 1185 I would say, matter a great deal more. We see evidence every day that if industrial relations fail and break down, all the skill and all the genius of managers and executives cannot save the country from grievous damage.
The Chancellor has matched his concessions to Surtax payers by imposing additional tax on the profits of industry. Presumably, the theory behind that is that the Chancellor has given the top man a substantial pay increase and is calling upon the shareholders to pay the money.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)
On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to put down Clauses and get them called, but then to argue not on the basis of their merits, but to use them as a blind or cover for a discussion of an issue already decided by the Committee?
§ Mr. Houghton
Thank you, Sir Gordon. Hon. Members opposite must be rather duller than usual this afternoon.
I am arguing the relative merits al these proposals against those made by the Chancellor. I am about to argue that if the Chancellor can impose an additional 2½ per cent. Profits Tax on industry to pay Surtax reliefs, he can impose a further 2½ per cent. Profits Tax on industry for more general reliefs. If the 2½ per cent. additional Profits Tax to pay for Surtax reliefs, taken with the reliefs themselves, is to be of benefit to the economy, I am trying to show that there is every bit as much evidence behind my theory that another 2½ per cent. with wider-spread reliefs would be a greater boost to the economy.
I hope that I have succeeded in bringing myself back into order, if I was ever out of order. I know that the noble Lord is always willing to help me in these difficult matters, and I can see that he is listening attentively to my arguments.
The Chancellor may say, "This is all very well, but to give tax reliefs to the many will stimulate consumer demand just at a time when I do not want it, whereas tax reliefs to the few, although equal in amount and just as heavy a 1186 charge on the Exchequer, will be likely to lead to more saving and not to more spending". I do not think that there is any evidence to support that view either. It is difficult to say who is saving what at the moment. There is evidence to suggest that the great mass of the people are saving more, and with additional tax reliefs they would probably be stimulated to put aside still more.
The Chancellor may say that he could not, in any case, permit himself to such substantial reliefs in advance, but he has done it for Surtax payers. Why can he not do it for the rest? What makes him so sure about the results that he will get from the Surtax payers, and less sure about what he will get from everyone else? What is this magic which has lured him into this enormous cut in Surtax reliefs, but which, at the same time, has made him as stubborn as ever against providing reliefs lower down?
If the Chancellor can compel industry to underwrite his confidence in managers to the tune of another £84 million a year, why can he not call on them to underwrite equal confidence in the workers? This is the simple, relative point which I am putting to the Chancellor. I will not repeat the comment which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) made during Question Time a few minutes ago, but there is no doubt that the reliefs which the Chancellor is giving to Surtax payers is disturbing to those who are conscious of the welfare of those much lower down.
Had the Chancellor's Budget statement ended just before he proposed the drastic Surtax cuts, we on this side of the Committee would have felt that his budgetary strategy made a coherent policy at this juncture in our economic affairs, and it would have been much more difficult for us to propose some of these improvements which we have felt impelled to put forward.
We have to deal with the Chancellor's proposals as they are but, even taking the necessity, from his point of view, of giving Surtax reliefs, what a call to arms he would have had had he declared that our economy was socially and industrially indivisible, and that alongside reliefs to Surtax payers there would be reliefs to all other wage and salary earners. He could have put the whole 1187 nation on its toes instead of dividing it as he has done by these proposals. He could have called for a big, national heave to get the country out of the economic trough into which it is now gradually sinking.
The Chancellor is enterprising and imaginative, but his imagination and enterprise have played him false. I still have hopes, but he could have said, "This time, we will have tax reliefs by results". That would have been a new and magical appeal to the country. He could have put all his tax reliefs forward and said, "According to the justification that you give me for my confidence in the recuperative powers of the nation you shall have these reliefs, but if you fail me I shall have to withdraw them when the time comes". That would have put the country on its toes. The Chancellor is giving this relief willy-nilly to Surtax payers. He hopes that they will give him some economic reward. He has given everyone else a disappointing slap in the face.
That is our case in favour of the new Clauses. I do not know what is passing through the Chancellor's mind, but I suppose that in the middle of June all Chancellors of the Exchequer wonder whether they made the right sort of Budget statement in the middle of April. This afternoon, the Chancellor seems to be more than usually confident that what he said in April still holds good, but I do not know whether his hands are itching to grasp the economic regulators which he has put into the Bill. Is he having second thoughts on what he has promised to the Surtax payers?
§ Mr. Houghton
Thank you, Sir Gordon, for arresting me on a crescendo of eloquence.
I accept that I was straying a little beyond the new Clauses, but the merits of them go far beyond the financial detail within them. As I said before, they are a demonstration, and it is impossible to have a demonstration without carrying one's case far beyond the narrow confines of the new Clauses.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber)
The three new Clauses which have been 1188 explained by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) are all concerned with increases in personal reliefs.
The first new Clause would increase a married man's personal allowance from £240 to £250 while leaving the other allowances unaltered.
The second new Clause would do the same thing, but, in addition, would increase a single person's allowance from £140 to £150, and would also increase the maximum figure for the wife's earned income allowance by the same amount, from £140 to £150.
I do not think that the Committee would wish me to deal in detail with the third new Clause in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), as she is not here.
On a number of occasions during the last few weeks my right hon. and learned Friend has explained the reasoning behind his Budget proposals. I do not propose now to go over the same ground again. Nobody in his right senses would deny that at the time of the Budget there was excessive pressure on home demand, and nothing that has happened since throws doubt on the wisdom of my right hon. and learned Friend's appreciation of the situation at that time.
§ Mr. Nabarro
My hon. Friend referred to the pressure on home demand. Was not a survey published by the Federation of British Industries, 48 hours ago, showing that a number of firms were not working to capacity at present? How does my hon. Friend reconcile that survey with his statement about pressure on home demand? Is he not mistaking the symptoms? Is not the correct symptom the pressure of wage demands on costs and prices, which is an entirely different proposition?
§ Mr. Barber
No, Sir. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. I would have to go into considerable detail to convince him that the appreciation made by my right hon. and learned Friend was correct at the time of the Budget, and still is correct. I must not go into details about the economic situation, or I shall get into trouble with you, Sir Gordon.
The point is that that was the appreciation of my right hon. and learned Friend at the time of the Budget, and it was in order to deal with that situation 1189 that he provided for an above-the-line surplus of £506 million. To achieve that it was necessary for him to propose to the Committee a net increase of £68 million in taxation this year.
The second Clause, also in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), incorporates the proposal contained in the first one. If the second were to be accepted it would wipe out the greater part of the net increase in taxation which was proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend. It must be apparent to the Committee that, quite apart from the merits of the proposals, there are overwhelming economic reasons for rejecting them this year. It is fair to add that, if we were to provide taxation relief of about £60 million in a full year, even the hon. Member for Sowerby would probably not seriously contend that these proposals should necessarily have first priority.
I was surprised that the hon. Member referred at such length to the Surtax reliefs which figured in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget proposals. On the assumption that the hon. Member's arguments were not meant deliberately to deceive the Committee—and I would never accuse the hon. Member for Sowerby of doing that—I can only assume that they are the consequence of muddled thinking. When all the somewhat devious reasoning which he put forward has been considered, the fact remains that these Clauses would involve a substantial cost to the Exchequer this year.
The second new Clause would involve a loss of £48 million to the Exchequer this year, whereas the Surtax reliefs will not cost the Exchequer a penny. Furthermore, as the hon. Member pointed out, by far the greater part of the Surtax relief is covered by the increase in Profits Tax. If I heard him aright he was proposing yet a further increase in Profits Tax of 2½ per cent. to cover his proposals, and I found that a little surprising.
§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
Do we understand that the Chancellor is now getting cold feet about his Surtax reliefs, and may be proposing to withdraw them before next year?
§ Mr. Barber
I do not see the point of that intervention. Nothing that I 1190 have said casts the slightest doubt on the proposals which my right hon. and learned Friend has made. The point is that in any consideration of personal reliefs which would result in a loss to the Exchequer this year the Surtax reliefs which will result in no loss this year have no relevance.
§ Mr. Houghton
I said that to assist the Chancellor we would be ready to post-date these additional reliefs to coincide with those he has given to the Surtax payers, in which case there would be no charge to the Exchequer this year from these new Clauses. I made that suggestion quite plainly.
§ Mr. Barber
That is not the purport of the Clauses. If the hon. Member wishes to achieve that purpose he can take the obvious way out and put down similar Clauses next year, when they can be considered again.
But it is relevant to consider the way in which these allowances have increased over the years. The married allowance, which was £180 from 1946 to 1950, was increased to £190 in 1951, to £210 in 1952–53, and to £240 in 1955. There was a similar increase of £30 in respect of the single person's allowance between 1951 and 1955. The hon. Member was critical of the fact that in 1955 there was a narrowing of the first reduced rate "band", because the effect—disregarding the relief provided through the reduction in the rates of tax in the same Budget—was to take back, except from those who paid very small amounts of tax, part or, in some cases, the whole of the benefits derived from the increase in personal allowances.
I do not want to waste time in going into this matter in detail, but two points are highly relevant. First, as the hon. Member knows, the purpose of the changes made in 1955 in this way was to carry out the suggestion of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income that the starting point of liability for individuals was too low and ought to be raised—but in such a way as not to benefit people with higher incomes. Secondly, taking the whole 1955 Budget into account, every taxpayer paid less Income Tax than he would have if that Budget had made no change at all in tax rates and allowances.
1191 Any further relief from taxation is attractive, but a great deal has already been done. I have some figures here, but I shall not weary the Committee with them; I ask hon. Members who are interested in the matter to read an Answer given to the right hon. Member for Huyton on 20th March this year. The right hon. Gentleman asked for figures which would show what percentage of income was taken in tax, on a basis which would enable a given gross income in 1951 to be compared with the income at the present day having the same purchasing power.
The Answer is very illuminating, and I am not sure that it was the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman expected. It showed that in every case the tax liability, as a percentage of income—allowing for the rise in the cost of living—was reduced. These lower percentages which come out in the Answer are partly the consequence of the increased personal allowances made over the years.
The cost of the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East alone would, according to the interpretation of the word "householder", be anything from £20 million to £50 million in the present year. Whether or not the other two Clauses are desirable in themselves; whether or not, in any year when there could be some substantial remission of taxation, they should have priority, the fact remains that to provide for reliefs this year on the scale suggested would run counter to the basic purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Indeed, in fairness to the hon. Member, he virtually admitted at one point that he thought he had little chance of success with these Clauses. He said that they were little more than a demonstration. Because of their high cost, if for no other reason, I must ask the Committee to reject them.
§ Mr. Anthony Crosland (Grimsby)
The reply of the Economic Secretary demands some comment. The hon. Gentleman has based the whole of his case on the assumption that when the Chancellor framed his Budget we were in a period of such excess demand that concessions costing £84 million—as the hon. Gentleman has admitted that 1192 the proposals in these Clauses would cost—cannot be envisaged by the Chancellor. I ask the Economic Secretary to consider the implications of this statement, that we have such a condition of excess demand in this country that no further concessions of any character can be made.
Two comments ought to be made. The first is that which was made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), that this statement is inconsistent with the findings of the recent F.B.I. survey, which showed a high degree of non-utilisation of capacity in a large proportion of British industry. The second and, I suggest, the very much more serious implication in saying that we have such an excess demand is that for twelve months there has been no increase in production in the British economy, no natural growth of any kind.
If, after twelve months of no increase in production, we have excess demand, I should like to know whether this means that all the new investment undertaken during those twelve months yielded no return of any kind. Has there been no increase of productivity and industrial efficiency? That is the implication of saying that after twelve months of stagnant production we have an excess demand.
The Economic Secretary must face this if he proposes to use that argument as the main reason for not accepting these new Clauses, and no doubt later for refusing other concessions which hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be urging on him. He must face the fact that the argument that after 12 months of stagnant production we have excess demand implies that all our investment during that period has been wasted, that there is no natural increase in efficiency and productivity in the system.
The implications are such that they could not possibly be accepted by any Chancellor of the Exchequer. So I wish to insist that the major reason for rejecting this and other concessions is one of excess demand in April when the Chancellor framed his Budget is not consistent with the facts about the British economy, and I hope that if the hon. Gentleman is proposing to resist further new Clauses and proposals he will use 1193 a rather more plausible and ingenious argument.
§ Mr. Nabarro
Before we part with this new Clause I wish to put one or two questions to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary which, I hope, he will answer now or possibly, as it is equally in order, in the debate on the next new Clause to be called.
The Income Tax allowance for a wife is £100 per annum. The Income Tax allowance for a child up to and including 11 years is £100 per annum. The Income Tax allowance for a child between 12 and 15 years inclusive is £120 per annum. The Income Tax allowance for children wholly engaged in educational pursuits and over the age of 16 years is £150 per annum. So the children are graduated for Income Tax allowances at £100, £120 and £150 per annum. The wife allowance is £100 per annum, only. That is nonsense. A wife is much more valuable than any child, and much more expensive. That ought to be recognised by the Treasury which has permitted allowances for Income Tax purposes, as between children of varying ages, and the allowance for a wife for Income Tax purposes, to become badly out of relation to one another.
In the figure of £250 mentioned in the first of the proposed new Clauses, it is, of course, implicit that there is still an allowance of only £100 for the wife. I hope that the Economic Secretary will give us some hope, in his remarks on this or the ensuing new Clause, that some measure of reform may be expected in the future regarding the disparity which the figures I have just quoted obviously reveal.
§ Mr. Barber
First, may I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). It is extremely difficult, without going into the matter in great detail, at a time when one in dealing with proposals to increase personal allowances, to convince those hon. Members who do not accept the fact that there is considerable overstrain in the economy at present. Of course, it is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman said, and as was indicated earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that some industries are working below capacity. But, taking the country as a whole and looking at the 1194 various economic indicators, I should have thought that there is no doubt at all that the view taken by my right hon. and learned Friend at the time of the Budget was amply justified and has been vindicated by subsequent events, and by the figures which we now have available.
The hon. Member for Grimsby asked how it was that in these circumstances our economy did not seem to be growing, or had not grown significantly over the past twelve months. Again, I cannot, on this occasion, go into the matter in detail. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well from his great experience of economic matters, there are many reasons which might account for this. I will mention only one, and I do not for a moment suggest that it is the most important. With all the new machinery at our disposal, as the result of a considerable increase in investment by productive industry, it is a fact that recently there have been cuts in the number of hours worked. In itself, this is bound to affect the total productive output. There are other reasons, some of them may be more important and others less. But I am sure that. I should not be in order were I to go into those aspects at any great length.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, who made a particular point about the relativity between various personal allowances, I can only say on this occasion that one of the primary considerations which my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors have always had to bear in mind in considering what ought to be done about personal allowances is the way in which an increase in one personal allowance has, as it were, a consequence regarding other personal allowances.
As I understand, my hon. Friend is saying that he thinks that the allowances are out of line and that this fact ought to be borne in mind on any occasion when my right hon. and learned Friend did feel able to make some concessions in respect of personal allowances. I will certainly bear that in mind and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster.
§ Mr. Nabarro
May I get this straight? All I am asking my hon. Friend to do is to convey to the Chancellor of the 1195 Exchequer, who was not present when I was speaking, the importance—in a fiscal sense—of holy matrimony, and to divorce it for the moment—in a fiscal sense—from the allowances for children.
Since 1951, the Conservative Party has applied itself, conscientiously and rightly, to a progressive increase of children's allowances for Income Tax purposes. Speaking from memory, I think that the child allowance was £70 when the Conservative Party came to office in 1951. Now the allowances amount to the three figures which I have given. But nothing has been done about the wife allowance. As a wife is such an expensive asset, surely the wife should rank first. I said that the wife was an expensive asset and the word "asset" is perfectly right. The wife should rank first, and so should any improvement of the allowance given to her spouse in respect of his wife for Income Tax purposes.
§ Mr. Barber
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is now proposing that there should be some form of capital allowance for a wife. But I know, from my private conversations with my hon. Friend, that he and I take much the same sort of view about women, and I will convey his observations to my right hon. and learned Friend.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)
It is not for me to investigate the fiscal divorce of holy matrimony—an operation no doubt carefully considered in Conservative circles, but one which I could not hope even to describe. I was a trifle amused by the Economic Secretary warning us solemnly against muddled thinking. Perhaps he did not realise some of the things which were to follow.
I suppose that if we are to push this business about the wife and the child a little further we shall have to consider how expensive an asset one is oneself. What we are describing deals, it is true, with personal allowances, but the real question put before us is: at what point do we begin taxing single persons and married people? These are only allowances made by some bit of muddled thinking no doubt by those who originally prepared the Income Tax Acts. The question we have to consider is very simple. Are we justified, in present cir 1196 cumstances—and those we must consider in comparison with the rest of this Finance Bill—in refusing to increase the amount of income of the comparatively poor man which escapes taxation?
I agree that it applies over the whole belt of incomes, but the real importance of this and the number of people principally concerned are matters which have to do with the bottom of the belt of Income Taxpayers. They are the vast majority of people. The reason why this would be an expensive change, even to the very limited and modest extent which my hon. Friend proposed, is simply the numbers of people who would be affected. What is so violently wrong, not merely in the refusal of this proposal, but with the complete failure of the Chancellor to do anything about this until nearer the next General Election, is that, at the same time, he is proposing to make very considerable concessions to the directly opposite class of people—the small, not large, number of people who pay, and are in a position to pay, a considerably larger, not smaller, amount of tax.
It is an almost classic case of Tory philosophy. It is Tory philosophy, apparently, to make this concession to the Surtax payer and to refuse, at the same time, to make any concession to the bottom dog in the Income Tax world. That is what the refusal of this proposal means. It is muddled thinking to try to confuse this, as the Economic Secretary did, with the question of timing. If he had chosen to look at the merits of the case he could even have avoided all those difficulties by considering what had been put to him verbally. He would not do that. He preferred to try to work up a defence on questions of timing, knowing perfectly well that on any view of social justice no defence whatever was possible for a refusal to accept this new Clause or the omission to move anything of the sort in the Finance Bill.
It is monstrous that at a time when we are still supposed to be moderately prosperous—although that appears to be getting more and more doubtful every day, so we are told—this concession should be made, whatever the dating of it, to Surtax payers, the best friends, no doubt, of the Tory Party, and the Tory Party should refuse to support a proposal in favour of a far larger group of 1197 people who, quite clearly, if there is anything going, ought to have a much better claim and a much earlier claim than that of Surtax payers.
It is monstrous to try to get out of this on minor matters of timing. The right way of looking at this was to suppose that people put aside money for paying Surtax when they knew that the Surtax would be due to be paid later. That is ordinary prudence and a course to be encouraged, but that is all that could be said and that was all it was when it was a matter of defending the proposals in the Budget. This is not a question of being able to afford it, or of upsetting the balance of the Budget or anything of that sort. It is merely a question of deliberately preferring to make a concession to the fairly rich to making a concession to the far larger number of people who, I repeat, are at the bottom of the scale.
Think about those people. They get £3 a week for a single person and £5 a week for a married couple. What is the social justice or sense in taxing people like that? What is the social justice or sense in refusing to help them when the Government are doing the other things in this field?
This, of course, is a question of principle, but it is not a try-on, as was suggested by one hon. Member after another. It is an attempt—I agree, obviously a hopeless attempt—to make the party opposite understand that there is some social content even in a Finance Bill.
§ Mr. Percy Holman (Bethnal Green)
I add my appeal to the Treasury Bench on this matter. I speak for an area which is traditionally poorer than most of the rest of London. The effect of not increasing the personal allowances at this time will be detrimental to the poorer elements in our community.
By its refusal to accept these proposals, the Treasury is, in effect, increasing the number of taxpayers among the poorest in the country. An old-age pensioner
§ now receiving a pension somewhat increased since the beginning of April, and going out to earn, finds that the maximum allowed for a man under 70 or a woman under 65 is now brought within the tax range. Our proposal is ultra-modest. It would increase personal allowance only from £240 to £250 for a married couple and would not obviate all this increased group of pensioners and others on very low incomes from once again coming within the range of those who pay Income Tax, but it would at any rate mitigate the hardship.
§ Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)
Are not the people of wham the hon. Member is speaking exempt under the provisions for relief in respect of small incomes?
§ Mr. Holman
They are not exempt, for only their pension is treated as earned income. There are manufacturers who are finding that part-timers whom they are employing, among them these pensioners, are now becoming liable to pay Income Tax although they were not liable to do so last year. That sort of thing alone should justify the Government in making a concession along the lines of personal reliefs.
There is another reason why personal relief should be increased this year. In only twelve months the cost of living index has risen by four points. It is not far off 4 per cent., and 4 per cent. on £240 is, as near as possible £10. Every forecast indicates that the cost of living will go up another two or three points during the next twelve months. The Government should meet the position which is arising. I plead with the Treasury Bench to give this matter second thoughts and to come down on the side of same relief in personal allowances in order to avoid increasing hardship for the elderly and other low-income groups.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 226.1201
|Division No. 208.]
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara
|Bacon, Miss Alice
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
|Brockway, A. Fenner
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
|Benson, Sir George
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)
|Reynolds, G. W.
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
|de Freitas, Geoffrey
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
|Robertson, John (Paisley)
|King, Dr. Horace
|Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)
|Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
|Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
|Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
|Silverman, Julius (Aston)
|Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
|Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
|Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
|McKay, John (Wallsend)
|Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
|Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
|Sorensen, R. W.
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
|Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
|Manuel, A. C.
|Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
|Gooch, E. G.
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
|Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
|Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
|Milne, Edward J.
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
|Mitchison, G. R.
|Symonds, J. B.
|Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
|Moody, A. S.
|Taylor, John (West Lothian)
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
|Mort, D. L.
|Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)
|Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
|Hart, Mrs. Judith
|Hayman, F. H.
|Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
|Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
|Herbison, Miss Margaret
|Oliver, G. H.
|Hill, J. (Midlothian)
|Oram, A. E.
|Hilton, A. V.
|Wells, Percy (Faversham)
|Paget, R. T.
|Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
|Wilkins, W. A.
|Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
|Parkin, B. T.
|Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
|Hoy, James H.
|Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
|Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
|Winterbottom, R. E.
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
|Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
|Hunter, A. E.
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)
|Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
|Prentice, R. E.
|Janner, Sir Barnett
|Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
|Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Proctor, W. T.
|Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
|Redhead, E. C.
|Agnew, Sir Peter
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
|Errington, Sir Eric
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
|Farey-Jones, F. W.
|Cary, Sir Robert
|Channon, H. P. G.
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
|Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
|Glover, Sir Douglas
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
|Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
|Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
|Contain, A. P.
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William
|Bidgood, John C.
|Coulson, J. M.
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
|Bishop, F. P.
|Craddock, Sir Beresford
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
|Black, Sir Cyril
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
|Hall, John (Wycombe)
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
|Bourne Arton, A.
|Currie, G. B. H.
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
|Boyle, Sir Edward
|Dalkeith, Earl of
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
|Digby, Simon Wingfield
|Harvie Anderson, Miss
|Brooman White, R.
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)
|Duncan, Sir James
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)
|Burden, F. A.
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
|Butcher, Sir Herbert
|Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle upon-Tyne, N.)
|Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
|Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
|Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
|Skeet, T. H. H.
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
|Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
|Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
|Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
|Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
|Spearman, Sir Alexander
|Hulbert, Sir Norman
|Stanley, Hon. Richard
|Hurd, Sir Anthony
|More, Jasper (Ludlow)
|Iremonger, T. L.
|Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
|Stodart, J. A.
|Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
|Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir Malcolm
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
|Studholme, Sir Henry
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
|Nugent, Sir Richard
|Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
|Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
|Kerby, Capt. Henry
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
|Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton
|Osborn, John (Hallam)
|Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
|Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
|Page, John (Harrow, West)
|Temple, John M.
|Page, Graham (Crosby)
|Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
|Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
|Leather, E. H. C.
|Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
|Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
|Leavey, J. A.
|Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
|van Straubenzee, W. R.
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
|Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
|Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
|Pike, Miss Mervyn
|Vickers, Miss Joan
|Linstead, Sir Hugh
|Pilkington, Sir Richard
|Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
|Litchfield, Capt. John
|Pitt, Miss Edith
|Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
|Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
|Loveys, Walter H.
|Price, David (Eastleigh)
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
|Ward, Dame Irene
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
|Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
|Quennell, Miss J. M.
|Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
|Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)
|Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
|Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
|Wise, A. R.
|McMaster, Stanley R.
|Rees-Davies, W. R.
|Woodhouse, C. M.
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
|Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
|Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
|Yates, William (The Wrekin)
|Maginnis, John E.
|Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
|Markham, Major Sir Frank
|TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Colonel Sir H. Harrison and

domain: politics


Personal stories can be a powerful catalyst for change – challenging stereotypes, building bridges, and inspiring action. In a country as diverse and complex as the United States, the identities of Muslim Americans remain layered and contested. We all have stories to tell: stories that deserve to be collected, conserved, and celebrated.
“Muslim American Journeys” is a MALA program produced in partnership with NPR’s StoryCorps and the Library of Congress, providing a platform for Americans of Muslim heritage to share their individual stories. By sharing a diverse range of narratives and experiences, “Journeys” aims to document oral history, inspire pride, and celebrate individuality. Every story recorded is officially archived in the Library of Congress, and outstanding stories are featured on National Public Radio.
“I am keenly aware of discrimination against people with mental health issues. I advocate for my patients and their families – and I want to spearhead a movement to raise awareness about mental health.”
“I found myself lingering on the outskirts of the outside. There was no path into this tight knit sphere. So instead, I pulled a typical Puerto Rican move and made myself at home in the loudest manner possible.”
“The more I treated babies, cried with families, and delved into science, the more humanistic I became. One might say that my faith strengthened, but not in the direction of the faith I was born into.”
“I do not have a disability; hence I had to fight against the social stigma and even with my family to marry someone with one… my wife is the first visually impaired student to be accepted to my university to pursue a higher education.”
“And so, to understand the moderate mind, you have to envision it on a continuum from radical to middle, but the closer you get to liberal, there is a wall. It creeps up on you, in the condemnation of homosexuality, in the unequal treatment and subjugation of women, but it’s there.”


Are you looking for an SUV with low consumption? All three of these reliable and popular hybrid SUVs get at least 30 mpg combined, which is satisfactory for most buyers. On top of that, these sport utility vehicles have many standard safety features.
The Hyundai Santa Fe is a reliable and popular hybrid SUV
Don’t be fooled by the low price of the 2022 Hyundai Santa Fe Hybrid. edmunds says the Santa Fe is a reliable and popular hybrid SUV with a lot of features for the money. It gets 34 mpg combined, which is 10 mpg more than the gas version. All-wheel drive is standard, and Hyundai’s five-year warranty is pretty good. The 2022 Santa Fe Hybrid is estimated to cost around $120 per month for gas, well below the $200 per month midsize SUV average.
Some of those standard safety features include forward collision avoidance and safe exit assist. Both help the driver when a crash or collision is imminent. The Surround View Monitor system helps to park the SUV, even in difficult situations.
MSRP Range: $34,300 – $40,710
MPG & Fuel: 33 City / 30 Highway / 32 Combined
Toyota’s Highlander Hybrid is one of the most reliable and popular hybrid SUVs
It makes sense that experts and drivers agree that the 2022 Toyota Highlander Hybrid makes a good SUV. It takes the long history of reliability the Highlander is known for and makes it even more fuel efficient. Edmunds notes that it’s fast for its size and even has a third row, but that row is better for kids. The Highlander Hybrid is estimated to cost about $113 a month to drive, still below average for an SUV of its size.
With front-wheel drive, the SUV gets 36 mpg combined or 35 mpg combined with all-wheel drive. That’s even better than the Corolla’s 34 mpg. Some of the best safety systems include the Pre-Collision System with Pedestrian Detection and Lane Departure Alert with Power Steering. Both systems help alert the driver to avoid a collision or a drifting vehicle. Cruise Control with Full-Speed Range Dynamic Radar can help the driver maintain a safe distance from the car ahead.
MSRP Range: $39,555 – $51,460
MPG & Fuel: 36 City / 35 Highway / 36 Combined
Don’t overlook the Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid
If the 2022 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid belongs anywhere, it’s on the list of popular and reliable hybrid SUVs. It came in at $37,520 this year, which is still a reasonable price for a hybrid SUV. Subaru made sure the Crosstrek had great ground clearance and all-wheel drive, making it a good choice for those who live in colder climates.
Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard, and Subaru has added plenty of safety systems to all trim levels. Some of the best include rear cross traffic alert and lane keeping system. Subaru’s pre-collision braking system is also helpful.
MSRP Range: $23,145 – $36,345
MPG & Fuel: Gas Only (City & Hwy Combined): 35 MPG
Electric + Gas (city and highway combined): 90 MPGe


text:
Keck Medicine of USC
Keck Medicine of USC is one of only two university-based medical systems in the Los Angeles area. Its internationally renowned physicians and scientists provide world-class patient care at Keck Hospital of USC, USC Norris Cancer Hospital, USC Verdugo Hills Hospital and more than 80 outpatient clinics in Los Angeles, Orange, Kern, Tulare and Ventura counties.
Keck Medical Center was ranked No. 16 on U.S. News & World Report’s 2019-20 Best Hospital Honor Roll and among the top 3 hospitals in Los Angeles and top 5 in California. The hospital also ranked in the top 4 in urology (tie); top 10 in geriatrics; top 15 in ophthalmology, cardiology & heart surgery, gastroenterology & GI surgery and nephrology; top 20 in neurology & neurosurgery; top 25 in cancer; and top 35 in pulmonology & lung surgery.
RN Clinical - Perioperative Float Pool - Full Time 12 Hour Rotating Shifts (Non-Exempt) (Union)Apply Keck Medicine of USC Hospital Los Angeles, California
As an integral part of the interdisciplinary team, the Surgical Services Float Pool Registered Nurse utilizes the nursing process to provide therapeutic care to a specific population of patients. The perioperative registered nurse uses the nursing process, designs, coordinates, and delivers care to meet the identified needs of all patients during perioperative phase. Perioperative nurses possess and apply knowledge of procedure and patient’s intraoperative experience throughout the patient care continuum. Perioperative nurse assesses, diagnoses, plans, intervenes and evaluates the outcome of interventions based on criteria that criteria that support a standard of care. Perioperative nurse addresses the impact of the surgical experience on the patient’123s physiological, psychological, sociocultural and spiritual responses. Perioperative nursing role and activities performed during the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phases of the patient’s surgical intervention. Perioperative nursing includes, but is not limited to: Peer education and patient/family teaching; support and reassurance; advocacy; control of environment; efficient provision of resources; maintenance of asepsis; monitoring physiological and psychological status; management aggregate patient needs; supervision of ancillary personnel; preoperative exploration, validation of current and future practices; integration and coordination of care across settings and among disciplines, collaboration and consultation. The Surgical Services Float Pool Registered Nurse is to float to different Surgical Services areas within Keck Medical Center of USC (i.e.: Surgery, Same Day Surgery, Endoscopy, HC2 Endoscopy Center, HC3, and HC4/OPSC among others) and USC Norris Cancer Hospital (i.e.: Endoscopy, Surgery among others) as needed.
The hourly rate range for this position is $41.00 - $88.00. When extending an offer of employment, the University of Southern California considers factors such as (but not limited to) the scope and responsibilities of the position, the candidate’s work experience, education/training, key skills, internal peer equity, federal, state, and local laws, contractual stipulations, grant funding, as well as external market and organizational considerations.
Minimum Education: • Bachelor’s Degree in Nursing (BSN) Minimum Experience/Knowledge: • Minimum of 3 (three) years as an operating room nurse in an acute care setting immediately prior to application. • Experience in 3 surgical specialties required • Experience in scrubbing preferred Required License/Certification: • Valid California Registered Nursing license • BLS for Healthcare Provider from American Heart Association. • ACLS for Healthcare Provider from American Heart Association preferred • CNOR preferred • Fire and Safety Certification. If no card upon hire, one must be obtained within 30 days of hire, and maintained by renewal before expiration date. (Required within LA City only)
REQ20117133 Posted Date: 12/26/2022 Apply
With just one click and a connection to LinkedIn, we can connect you with jobs that match your work experience.Start matchingto jobs with your LinkedIn account
Recently added jobs
- Environmental Services Worker - EVS - Full Time 8 Hour Evenings (Non-Exempt) (Union) Los Angeles, California REQ20134533
- Employee Engagement Specialist Los Angeles, California REQ20132502
- Adjunct Instructor of Quality of Care Los Angeles, California REQ20134673

domain: medical


Google has completed a £1.5 billion takeover of fitness wearable maker Fitbit, the firm has announced.
The tech giant’s parent company Alphabet revealed acquisition plans back in November 2019, allowing Google to grab a share of the smartwatch and health tracker market.
Regulators across the world have been scrutinising the deal amid concerns about data and privacy.
The European Union cleared the purchase in December, after Google committed to restrict user data and ensure Android phones can still connect with other wearables for at least 10 years.
‘This deal has always been about devices, not data, and we’ve been clear since the beginning that we will protect Fitbit users’ privacy,’ said Rick Osterloh, Google’s senior vice president for devices and services.
‘We worked with global regulators on an approach which safeguards consumers’ privacy expectations, including a series of binding commitments that confirm Fitbit users’ health and wellness data won’t be used for Google ads and this data will be separated from other Google ads data.’
Fitbit is one of the most recognised products in smart fitness wearables, having sold more than 120 million devices in over 100 countries since running onto the scene in 2007.
James Park, co-founder, assured users that Fitbit ‘will remain the same’ despite being officially part of the Google family going forward.
‘On our own, we pushed the bounds of what was possible from the wrist, pioneering step, heart rate, sleep and stress tracking,’ he said.
‘With access to Google’s incredible resources, knowledge and global platform, the possibilities are truly limitless.’


text:
Our aim is to create the music in the sonic energy and environment that the composers were when they first wrote that music.
Recorded on November 14, 2009.
Led by Jerry Fuller, Chicago’s Ars Antigua is dedicated to presenting music of the Renaissance, Baroque, and Classical eras. The ensemble performs a selection of musical jokes on period instruments. A musical joke, however, is a subtle and slippery thing. To give the gags some traction, harpsichordist Charles Metz discusses what can make a piece of music funny. The program includes Jean-Philippe Rameau's Le Poule, Leopold Mozart’s The Frog Party, and Georg Philipp Telemann’s Masquerade, along with works by Heinrich Ignaz Franz von Biber and Marco Uccellini.

domain: artistic


text:
A bill that allows police to tow cars of drivers lacking insurance coverage on a first offense was signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal on June 5 and goes into effect on August 1, 2012.
HB 1053 repeals current law that prohibits officers from towing cars of first–time violators of the compulsory insurance law and allows towing only on second and subsequent offenses. State senators passed the bill on May 24 with a 28–3 vote. The state House passed the bill by an 82–7 vote on April 25.
After the bill’s approval by senators, Speaker of the House Chuck Kleckley signed off on the latest version agreed upon by the state House and Senate, before sendings the legislation to Gov. Bobby Jindal for final consideration.
The bill, supported by the Louisiana State Police, aims to help bring down the number of uninsured drivers in the state by returning to harsher enforcement of the law, according to Rep. Ray Garafalo (R- Meraux), who authored the legislation.

domain: law


text:
Let’s get this out of the way: The Photo Album is far from Ben Gibbard’s favorite Death Cab for Cutie album. The band’s lead singer and songwriter isn’t shy about admitting that, even though he’s given it a deluxe reissue for the album’s 20th anniversary. “It’s kind of a cheesy analogy, but records are like my kids. I don’t have any children, so they’re kind of my contribution to the world,” Gibbard says. “You love them all, but you can see how one’s going to struggle to keep a job. The other one’s going to maybe go off and become a doctor, right? You can see them very clearly, certainly as you get older.”
The way Gibbard tells it, The Photo Album, the band’s third full-length, came at a stressful point. Death Cab for Cutie had been touring heavily to make money and was facing the prospect of following up their second album, 2000’s We Have the Facts and We’re Voting Yes, and follow-up project from that same year, The Forbidden Love EP, both of which took the band to a new level of popularity. “Our profile just shot up in that year, year and a half,” Gibbard says. “In economies of scale, it’s not that big, but going from selling 10,000 records to selling 50,000 records seemed like a massive jump at the time.” He struggled to find time to write enough songs for a new album that could keep the band touring; reflecting on the album in 2018, Gibbard told Noisey that many of the songs “are really underbaked.”
Yet The Photo Album is also the album that made Death Cab for Cutie what the band is today. As the band’s arrangements got bigger and more sweeping, Gibbard’s poignant lyrical vignettes became tighter and more refined. It was a winning formula: “If it’s true that music of this nature doesn’t get anymore heartfelt, it also rarely gets more infectious,” a Billboard review at the time declared. And it only solidified the band’s place in the emo canon, arriving as the genre’s second wave was spreading across the Midwest. Most notoriously, though, The Photo Album put Death Cab on the path to be one of the most commercially successful indie-rock bands of the 20 years to come after The O.C. used the song “A Movie Script Ending” in a memorable scene during the main four’s road trip to Tijuana, of course on Seth’s playlist. (Summer’s review: “It’s like one guitar and a whole lot of complaining!”) That song became Death Cab’s first to crack the charts, putting the band on a path to future No. 1 albums and licenses.
To celebrate the album’s 20th anniversary earlier in October, Death Cab released a 35-track deluxe of the album. It features demo, acoustic, and live versions of the original ten songs along with the three off the following Stability EP, which were written around the same time. Gibbard also recently spent some time reflecting on the album and its legacy with Vulture. “It’s a trip that it’s been 20 years, of course,” he says. “Time just flies.”
Song that changed the most from its demo
There are a number of songs on the record, maybe three or four, that when I brought them in, they were really minimal. They had just a verse and a chorus, maybe a double chorus for the end, but fairly minimal arrangements. When I turned in the demo for “Coney Island,” it had like a Neil Young, After the Gold Rush kind of stomp to it, very simple chords. As we were starting to dive into that song in the studio, doing the kind of folk-rock stomp thing just didn’t seem appropriate for the band at the time. It wouldn’t seem appropriate now either. It seemed like an opportunity for Chris and the rest of the guys to really get creative with this very simple structure.
I wouldn’t say that it’s one of my all-time favorites or anything like that. It certainly was indicative of the process and the record — like, Okay, let’s take the song that is in its infancy, very straightforward, and try to make something a little bit more pastoral and Death Cab out of it. I think that song has the most contributions from everybody as far as the sonic palette and the arrangements go.
Favorite Photo Album song to play live
Songs like “A Movie Script Ending” and “Why You’d Want to Live Here” and “We Laugh Indoors,” we played those songs on maybe three or four tours before we went into the studio. If you wanted to preserve the newness or the workshop element of the song you were playing live, it was very easy to do that in 2000, 2001, because YouTube didn’t exist. It was nice to hear some people come up after shows and be like, “What was that song you played, like, fourth? You said it’s a new song,” and be like, “Oh, that’s called ‘A Movie Script Ending.’” “Oh my God! I love that one. Is that going to be on the next record?” It was a nice point of conversation with fans and not necessarily an opportunity for people to capture something exclusive.
To this day, my favorite is still “A Movie Script Ending.” We’re in this very fortunate position where we’ve got a lot of songs that we kind of “need” to play every night. So playing songs from the first three records, we have limited space in the set to do that. “A Movie Script” is one that we rotate in.
It’s one that, not only do people tend to recognize more, but also for me, it’s a very sentimental song. It was a song I wrote about Bellingham, Washington, after we moved to Seattle. Bellingham is where we started. I went to college up there, and it was a very idyllic, dare I say innocent time in all of our lives, both personally and creatively. This is an era before social media, where you could experiment, and you could fail, and you could make mistakes — both in your personal life, but also musically — and really develop who you are as a person and as an artist. I wanted to write kind of a torch song for Bellingham that referenced places there that people who live there or used to live there would get. It was a song just for us.
B side that could’ve made The Photo Album
There really isn’t. One of the things that was little bit harrowing about making The Photo Album is that it was very much, as the trope goes, the difficult third record. The short of it is that you have your whole life to write your first record. The second record is whatever’s left off the first record and then the five songs you wrote in the last six months. And then the third record, you’re starting from scratch. You have nothing to pull on from the first couple records. There’s a reason that’s a trope, right? It tends to be true almost all the time.
Going into making The Photo Album, I was finishing the last little bits of the ten songs that we had complete the week before we went in the studio. We had a plan to have the record out in the fall, and we had to have a record to be on tour. It was in this weird, liminal space where the band had become our job, but we weren’t really making much money from it. It was an incredibly stressful record to make because every song had to work. The ten songs we had bookmarked for the record all had to make the record.
We had a longer version of the original version of “Stability” that was called “Stable Song.” That version ended up on Plans two records later, but we really only had “Stable Song,” which, in its form on the Stability EP, came out to be this long, expansive thing that Chris made, which I still totally loved. Then this slowcore, really down song, “20th Century Towers,” and a Björk cover, “All Is Full of Love.” That was all we had. So when I think of The Photo Album, I don’t think of it having any proper B sides. Everything that we recorded for that record made the record because we didn’t really have any more material.
Photo Album song you wish you worked on more
I’ve always loved “Blacking Out the Friction” in its simplicity. It’s just very simple chords. My four-track demo of it was very down and very quiet — different from the demos that are on this reissue. It didn’t really need to say anything more. But it’s funny because I was really happy with how “Coney Island” turned out, too, but I think that there’s a similarity between “Blacking Out the Friction” and “Coney Island,” in the structure and the chords. They’re kind of 1A and 1B. It’s like, verse with two chords, chorus and then verse, and then a double chorus, and the songs are kind of over. If I could go back and do it over again, we probably would’ve done a little bit more work to delineate those two songs. “Coney Island” maybe could have used one little extra section, something else to happen narratively or whatever.
But, you know, hindsight’s 20/20. Those are songs that people don’t scream for all the time, but it’s funny how every song is somebody’s favorite song somewhere. There’s nothing about The Photo Album that I would go back and change — there’s nothing broken about it, but I feel that there are elements that are a little more minimal, or they lack a little bit of sophistication. I think it would’ve been nice to have more time to work on it, but it’s what it is. It’s a perfect snapshot of where we were at that time.
Favorite use of a Death Cab song in a movie or TV show
One of the things about our music that I think works, but sometimes is a very fine line to walk, is the way I write songs tends to be very specific. If I can be so bold, I tend to be kind of cinematic at times. I think what can be difficult about it is a director is trying to hit an emotional point with the music, but the music is also speaking about something very, very specific. So, you have this scenario in which the director is trying to overly nail what’s happening in the scene by having a song that’s almost exactly what it’s about. It would be like if somebody used “What Sarah Said” in a hospital scene. That’s pretty on the nose. Or you have situations where somebody’s using a song that is about something very different, but they’re trying to hit this emotional note, and that can be a little incongruent.
One of the things that I really like, even to this day, about the first usage in The O.C. is Seth and his friends are driving around, and Death Cab’s on the radio, and they reference something like, “Don’t diss Death Cab.” That was one of the first licenses we ever got for TV of any note. As we were not starving musicians, but certainly not thriving musicians, at that time, the money from a license on a major network was huge for us. They would help us pay our rent, and it was a big deal. So we tuned in to watch the show, expecting the song to be just playing in the background while somebody was doing something. Then to have this weird fourth wall broken, where you have these fictional characters using a band that exists currently as a point to bounce dialogue off of, was just a really surreal moment — to actually have it be referenced and almost be like a character in the show. From that point on, things continued to snowball, depending on your perspective, either for the better or for the worse. For us, I would definitely say for the better.
Most emo song
It’s interesting, I’ve always thought of us as being like, emo-adjacent. At the time that our band was first starting out, the things that we listened to and the bands that we admired, we didn’t … I had no knowledge, hand to God, no knowledge of the emo scene that was percolating in the Midwest and that people were throwing that term around with Promise Ring and Get Up Kids and Braid and whomever else. People would be like, “Do you like emo music?” I was like, “Oh, you mean like Afghan Whigs, like emotional?” He’s like, “No man, like the Get Up Kids and the Promise Ring.” I had not heard any of those bands.
I’m not dissing those bands at all, I was friends with a lot of those guys, but I think that particular scene seemed to me, even at that point, a kind of a dead end. We had been offered tours by some bands that will remain nameless that were very popular at the time in that genre. We always turned that stuff down because we felt like, that’s not how we want to be perceived. If people used the term emo to describe our music, we never got mad. We weren’t like, “Fuck you, we’re not an emo band.”
I get why we are emo-adjacent, or why people would consider us like an emo band, because of the kind of lyrics I write and how we present our songs. If you want to talk about what’s the most emotionally wrought song that we have, it would probably either be the song “Transatlanticism” or “What Sarah Said” from Plans.
I want to be abundantly clear, I have nothing but respect for all those bands that I mentioned. That is a scene that is certainly having a renaissance. It’s interesting to see some of the similar threads starting to flow through a lot of younger, specifically female, singer-songwriters that have grown up on a lot of this music and are taking a lot of that imagery and emotional weight and bringing it into music today. At the time, a lot of the music that got called emo was like, pop-punk songs about girls and sweaters. It wasn’t something that I listened to, and therefore we didn’t want to lean into the association.
Later song that reminds you of The Photo Album
I think a song like “Cath …” on Narrow Stairs could easily have been on Photo Album. The first three records are very guitar-forward. Chris and I would weave our parts together, almost a deconstructionist approach to arranging music. I did not want to play chords. I thought that just strumming a G chord and then strumming a C chord was the most boring thing in the world. I still do. As we progressed, there are new elements that started coming into the mix, as they were with a lot of people’s music. You see the emergence of the computer as an instrument and all the things you can do with that. I bought a piano for the first time, so I had a piano in my house, started writing on that. Our process for making music started to change, certainly through Transatlanticism and Plans. But Narrow Stairs was more of a throwback to the first three records than probably anything we’ve done since.
Biggest lesson from The Photo Album
It’s weird to say this because I feel like I’m knocking the record. I’m really not. There is this myth that we like to tell ourselves, that musicians make their best work when their backs are to the wall and when they’re fighting. We love these stories about how the Rolling Stones were having fistfights when they were making Exile on Main Street; these stories where it’s like, the Gallagher Brothers, they would kill each other, but then they made (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?; these stories that conflict creates great art. In my life and my career, that has been proven to be entirely false. The times at which our band was not getting along or fighting or we had our backs up against the wall of a deadline or whatever it was — that’s never been when we made our best work.
The Photo Album was a record that was made under intense pressure to follow up these two releases we had, We Have the Facts and Forbidden Love EP, where people were now really listening. At least, we felt that at that point. So, there was the pressure of that. There was the fact that we had been touring so much, and I didn’t have a lot of time to write songs. We weren’t getting along very well when we made that record. So for me, the biggest lesson that I learned in that process was that the trope that conflict creates the best art is entirely false. It makes a great story, but very rarely do you hear, specifically from a band, “Yeah, we had never hated each other more. I mean, that was the best record we ever made.” Like I said, Photo Album is not in my top-three Death Cab records. But I love it.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
More From This Series
- Mark Knopfler on the Most Patient and Wistful Music of His Career
- The Best and Cringiest of Creed, According to Scott Stapp
- Laura Jane Grace on the Most Painful and Surprising Music of Her Career


text:
When Jesus was asked what the greatest command is, He surprised the inquirer by offering two commandments: Love God and love others. These were not options for a disciple, but rather by following these two commands, someone could fulfill all of the law. Despite the simplicity of these commands, they can be extremely difficult to follow. That’s one reason bestselling author Gary Chapman has penned THE LOVE AS A WAY OF LIFE DEVOTIONAL (co-written with Elisa Stanford), a 90-day devotional designed to help you make love a daily habit.
Designed as a complement to LOVE AS A WAY OF LIFE, Chapman identifies seven characteristics of a loving person: kindness, patience, forgiveness, courtesy, humility, generosity and honesty. He believes that by reflecting these qualities in everyday life, we reflect the love of God to our friends, family and spouse.
Each short reflection begins with a scripture, then includes a reading portion that’s two or three minutes long, and concludes with a thought, prayer or action step. Many of the reflections draw on inspirational stories or quotes. Readers will be familiar with illustrations from Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi and others. But some of the best stories are the personal ones from Chapman’s life. For example, Chapman tells the story of his friend, Joe Warner, who visits his home every Christmas with a box filled with sugary sweet oranges. Though Warner is in his 80s, he continues to pursue such acts of kindness and offers a colorful reminder that love is often portrayed in small yet significant ways.
Another beautiful story is told of Mary Jo Copeland’s care of the homeless and poor at Sharing and Caring Hands in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The primary mission is to reach out to the disadvantaged. Copeland’s practical approach to helping others by providing everything from socks to warm meals is a tangible expression of God’s love.
Chapman writes: “The life of Christ reminds us that only when we take the attitude of a servant can we grow into the character of God. Every time we serve someone else, the results are out of our control --- who knows how the other person will react? Yet those are the moments we understand Christ’s love for us most deeply.”
One of the great strengths of THE LOVE AS A WAY OF LIFE DEVOTIONAL is its brevity. The short, easy-to-read portions make this a wonderful resource for those who want to supplement their reading of Chapman’s full-length book. It’s also a great gift for anyone who is brand new to the faith.
Reviewed by Margaret Oines on October 7, 2008
The Love As a Way of Life Devotional: A Ninety-Day Adventure That Makes Love a Daily Habit

domain: library


text:
Irrigation companies, irrigation system repair, irrigation repair, sprinkler repair, grass seeds florida
- 1504 US-19 ALT Palm Harbor, FL 34683
- +1 (727) 232-4107
Irrigation Florida, Sprinkler installation, sprinkler repair, leak detection, drip irrigation, micro irrigation, sustainable irrigation, smart controllers, valve replacement,
- 24108 Plymouth Hollow Cr. Sorrento, FL 32776
- +1 (407) 731-9919
American Well & Irrigation, Inc. is the best water well drilling and irrigation company serving the greater Jacksonville, Florida area. With increasing water and sewer rates, they provide own water so
- 49 Ardella Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
- +1 (904) 249-5400
Harrison Irrigation offers commercial and residential services that include watering systems, drainage, and landscape lighting.
- 4410 Princess Labeth Ct W, Jacksonville, Florida, 32258, United States of America
- +1 (904) 535-1778
McD Sprinkler LLC offers excess water drainage and home irrigation services throughout Jupiter, FL and Palm Beach County.
- Jupiter, FL 33458
- +1 (561) 262-3850
D&E Pool and Lawn Service Inc is a landscape spruce up service in Cape Coral, FL, offering pool care & irrigation and sprinkler system maintenance.
- 1242 SW Pine Island Rd
- +1 (239) 800-4206
Water Well Pumps in DeLand, FL
- 3685 Cross Branch Rd, DeLand, FL 32724, USA
- +1 (386) 738-5338
Best professional, affordable, residential & commercial full-service landscaping company in Naples, Florida. Click or call us today at (239) 347-0717 for a FREE Quote.
- 1820 Krape Road, Naples, FL 34120 USA
- +1 (239) 347-0717
Landscaper in Boynton Beach, FL
- 8201 96th Ct S, Boynton Beach, FL 33472
- +1 (561) 733-7726
Evolve Professional Landscape Management, LLC that the most stress-free way to obtain and keep a beautifully landscaped yard is to hire a professional landscaping contractor.
- 897 E. Lemon Street, Bartow, Florida, 33830, United States
- +1 (877) 585-1007

domain: geography


text:
Part 2 of Ricoeur’s Freedom and Nature is devoted to voluntary action. For Ricoeur, our embodiment is the key to understanding how this works. Careful attention to the phenomena of our embodied existence refutes all dualism of mind and body. The intentionality of action is practical rather than representational. “Action is the criterion of [willing’s] authenticity…. it is not simply a question of subsequently carrying out our plans and programs, but of testing them continuously amid the vicissitudes of reality…. The genesis of our projects is only one moment in the union of soul and body” (pp. 201-202; emphasis in original).
A tacit action accompanies even the most indecisive willing. In the application of any kind of knowledge, it “has to be moved like my body” (p. 204). Will can only be fully understood in the context of effort, but effort in turn can only be understood against a background of spontaneity. Action always involves both a doing and a happening, a combination of active and passive aspects. The body is not the object of action, but its organ. An organ is not an external instrument, but a part of us.
The body as the organ of our action has both preformed skills that form the basis of reflexes and acquired habits, and involuntary movements associated with emotion. The bodily movements associated with emotion are inseparable from the emotion itself. Habit involves a kind of degeneration of voluntary action into automatism, but this very degeneration makes it more easily deployable. Ricoeur here speaks of an involuntary that sustains and serves voluntary action. Habit can help overcome the resistance of emotion, and emotion can help overcome the inertia of habit.
In effort, the body is moved through the mediation of the nonrepresentational “motor intentions” of desire and habit. Accordingly, voluntary movement should not be understood as essentially preceded by representation. Instead, the realization of intentions depends on the living being’s structural subordination of motor montages to intentions. There can be no willing without ability, and no ability without possible willing.
Both ability and a certain spontaneous “docility” of the body exhibited in simple gestures like raising my arm are prior to any experience of effort. There is also “a seeing and a knowing which the will does not produce” (p. 336). On the other hand, if all our acts are attributable to a same self, it is because they participate in a unity of effort. (For more on the same book, see Phenomenology of Will; Ricoeur on Embodiment; Ricoeur on Choice; Consent?)

domain: literature


text:
Vincent D’Onofrio almost sounds gleeful as he dodges the question.
The 55-year-old actor, speaking to QMI Agency over the phone, won’t talk very much about his character’s appearance in the upcoming Daredevil series from Netflix. D’Onofrio portrays businessman Wilson Fisk, whose interests in the future of New York City’s Hell’s Kitchen neighbourhood eventually push him into conflict with blind attorney Matt Murdock – also known as Daredevil.
Fisk, familiar to Marvel Comics readers as the imposing villain Kingpin, typically wears a white suit jacket and uses a walking stick. Ever since the Daredevil project and the partnership between Netflix and Marvel were announced – a deal which also includes shows featuring the characters Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, plus a Defenders mini-series where they all team up – fans have been wondering about the costumes. Will Kingpin be sporting the white suit?
“I can’t talk about anything when it comes to that,” D’Onofrio says. “I’m not going to tell you. I’m… not… going… to… tell… you. All I can say is that he’s an impeccable dresser.”
He drags out the syllables of the second-last word so that it sounds like “im-pecc-a-able.” You can almost hear him grinning on the other side of the phone line. Could he be wearing the outfit right now?
Thankfully, we can still get a glimpse of his character this week, as Netflix has released images of Fisk that show him from the front – previously, we had only seen him from behind. In the shots, Fisk is actually dressed in black, but that could change during the series, right? In the same way, Matt Murdock is seen wearing a black ninja-style outfit in the show’s trailer, but we’re betting that he’ll be donning a version of the traditional red Daredevil suit by the end of season one.
The 13-episode first season hits the streaming service on April 10, and it also stars Charlie Cox (as the titular hero), Elden Henson (as Murdock’s friend and law partner Foggy Nelson), Rosario Dawson (as Claire Temple, Luke Cage’s girlfriend in the comics) and Deborah Ann Woll (as Karen Page, one of DD’s love interests from the comics). Prepare yourself for a gritty take on the Daredevil story, as executive producer and Marvel TV head Jeph Loeb (Heroes) recently told Entertainment Weekly that they’re approaching the series as “a crime drama first, superhero show second.”
Interestingly, the show – which is executive produced by Loeb, Drew Goddard (Sinister Six) and showrunner Steven S. DeKnight (Spartacus) – will also serve as a sort of origin story for both Matt Murdock and Wilson Fisk, with their story arcs eventually meshing together.
“He just wants to make the city a better place to live,” says D’Onofrio about his character. “And he wants to get it done without being flashy, or being in the limelight. And so circumstances come up that change that for him, and it forces him to step out of the darkness a little bit.”
The Brooklyn-born actor, also known for his roles in Full Metal Jacket, Law & Order: Criminal Intent and the upcoming Jurassic World, says he appreciates that the show was actually filmed in New York City. Many scenes from the critically panned 2003 Daredevil film, starring Ben Affleck, were actually shot in downtown Los Angeles.
“I do love the fact that Matt Murdoch and Wilson Fisk are both New Yorkers… I loved that, because it’s shot all over the city, and all over the ‘burbs and stuff. I think that it is going to be a very New York show.”
Before signing on to the project, D’Onofrio says that he was already familiar with Wilson Fisk from reading comics as a youngster – but he knew the character as a Spider-Man villain. And now that Spider-Man has joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe – which also includes the titles from this Netflix-Marvel deal – could Fisk and Spider-Man eventually face off on the big screen?
D’Onofrio says he’s already talked to Marvel’s Jeph Loeb about that sort of possibility.
“You never know with them, they’re always working on ideas for this Marvel universe,” he says. “But I know that they’re very happy with the Kingpin, the Wilson Fisk that we all came up with… I’d love to do it. I’ve always been into the whole comic book thing. To get to play a character like that was so much fun.”

domain: news


text:
Read. Learn. Share.
Sonia Manzano brought decades of sunny days to Sesame Street and to millions of children watching the iconic television show. When Manzano auditioned for the fledgling show in 1971, she couldn’t have foreseen its immense popularity and never imagined she’d be spending the next 44 years teaching children how to count to 10 in Spanish, tooling around in the Fix-It Shop, and hanging out with the likes of Oscar the Grouch...
For the past 25 years, Mary Pope Osborne has taken readers on exciting adventures with time-traveling siblings Jack and Annie. Since 1992, 55 Magic Tree House books have been released, and to the delight of her readers,
there are more on the way.
Jon Klassen and Mac Barnett is shaping up to be yet another success! Their newest title is a funny tale about some very sneaky shapes.
Also in this issue, interviews with Veronica Appleton, Evan and Scott Gordon, and Kenneth Braswell.
This month’s special contributors are Shirin Zarqa-Lederman, who discusses the benefits of reading to reduce anxiety, and Julianne DiBlasi Black, who tells us how to raise a mighty girl.
To read this month's issue, sign up for a subscription!

domain: entertainment


text:
Jahvid Best's status is up in the air for the Detroit Lions game against the Atlanta Falcons this weekend after the running back suffered his second concussion of the year last week. It is still unknown whether he'll able to play this weekend, but Lions' coach Jim Schwartz won't rule him out.
The Lions traded for Ronnie Brown at the NFL trade deadline for extra insurance if Best is unable to go, but it seems there's still a decent chance of Detroit's starting running back being cleared for the game against Atlanta.
"Oh, sure," Schwartz said when asked whether Best could play this week. "He just needs to pass all his things. But again, it's a very objective test by neutral doctors. It's a hot topic in the NFL over the last couple years, and I admire the NFL for the stance that they've taken for the long-term health of players. Concussions aren't ignored anymore. Guys are very aware of what the symptoms are."
It's worth keeping track of Best's practice status for the next couple of days, but with the Lions' passing attack, there's no telling how much he'll be leaned on either way. On the season, Best has 390 yards and two touchdowns on the ground, but one score and 163 of those yards came in a Week 5 victory over the Chicago Bears.


text:
An Australian pharmacist has been appointed editor-in-chief of an important US pharmacy publication
The American Society of Consultant Pharmacists has named Chris Alderman, former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, as the new editor-in-chief of The Senior Care Pharmacist.
This publication is the peer-reviewed journal of the ASCP.
Dr Alderman served as editor-in-chief of the JPPR for seven years, overseeing the migration of the journal to an exclusively online format.
He also is well-known in the geriatric community for his work with older adults, the ASCP notes.
Dr Alderman is associate professor, pharmacy practice, at the Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, University of South Australia. He holds board certifications as a geriatric and psychiatric pharmacist specialist and has a bachelor of pharmacy degree from the University of South Australia.
Dr Alderman takes over from H. Edward Davidson, who has served as editor-in-chief of The Senior Care Pharmacist from 1998-2019, and who is being recognized at the 2019 Annual Meeting for his contributions to ASCP and geriatric pharmacy.
“This is an exciting time, and I’m grateful to Ed Davidson and his editorial team for the longstanding work that has positioned the journal so well,” said Dr Alderman.
“It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to lead The Senior Care Pharmacist in the next stage of its development.
“ASCP is committed to upgrading to modern digital platform, expanding the editorial, readership and contributor base for The Senior Care Pharmacist internationally, and continuing to push the publication to its fullest potential.”
He told the AJP that, “It is a great privilege to be a part of an excellent international journal that addresses the special challenges of safe & effective medication use in potentially vulnerable older people.”
ASCP also announced two new podcast hosts: Amie Blaszczyk, an associate professor and the division head of geriatrics at Texas Tech University of Health Sciences, and Donna Bartlett, associate professor of pharmacy practice and a clinical pharmacist with the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences Pharmacy Outreach Program.


text:
Citation: Karita Tähti. "Suggestive of Mild Serotonin Syndrome: An Experience with MAOI (Tranylcypromine) & DXM (exp66673)". Erowid.org. Apr 28, 2008. erowid.org/exp/66673
| T+ 1:00
| T+ 3:00
| T+ 5:00
| T+ 5:30
| T+ 0:00
| T+ 12:00
| T+ 12:00
I am not a medical professional. The following should not be construed as medical advice, nor as a demonstration of the general safety of combining MAOIs with dextromethorphan.
The interaction between monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and dextromethorphan (DM) is inconsistently described across existing literature. Safe concomitant dose ranges are unknown. I describe an experiment to determine whether DM can be used safely during treatment with the maximum approved dose of tranylcypromine (TC). I find that subrecreational doses of DM produce no potentially life-threatening effects, including changes in temperature or blood pressure. The interaction between DM and TC is observed to be partially consistent with mild serotonin syndrome. Their combination appears to be mostly pleasurable with a potential for excessive sleep of high quality.
Dextromethorphan (DM), 300 mg (2.5 times maximum approved dose), over the counter generic for Robitussin CoughGels
Tranylcypromine (TC), 60 mg (maximum approved dose), prescribed as Parnate
I have undergone treatment for depression for roughly ten years. During this time, antidepressants of all types have been prescribed, generally to little or no effect. On one occasion a drug combination produced serotonin syndrome severe enough to require hospital monitoring. TC has had the greatest beneficial effect, I was treated with it once previously for a few months, and currently have been taking it for about a month. Recently, TC prevents me from sleeping for longer than two or three hours at a time, with forced periods of wakefulness of at least one hour, and prevents dreaming entirely.
I have occasionally taken DM (mainly DexAlone), using various dosages and schedules while attempting to determine the most efficient method of inducing prolonged lucid dissociation and other poorly understood states, such as 'plateau sigma'. The discovery that my careful experiments were decreasing in reproducibility caused me to lose most interest in DM.
I am in good health. My blood pressure is normal, at 120/80 or better. My liver and kidney function is normal. I take a daily multivitamin along with extra calcium and vitamin C. I have a strong interest in medicine and pharmacology, especially as they relate to my health and psychiatric treatment.
Although TC is helpful, its impact on my depression remains unsatisfactory. I am interested in identifying an effective adjuvant, regardless of whether it is accepted as safe in combination with MAOIs. The dubious quality of information about DM use with MAOIs suggests a deficiency in medical understanding of its true safety and a potential to be safer than drugs with more consistent warnings.
An interaction between DM and TC not mediated by competition for liver enzymes may produce effects not experienced from the use of either drug alone. Thus, it may be productive to experiment with DM again despite extensive familiarity with its effects and previous rejection of its usefulness. I can quickly determine whether the interaction is excessively dangerous for myself while simultaneously gaining insight into its nature and useful applications.
Claims about the interaction between DM and TC vary considerably except in terseness. Typically, listed symptoms are ambiguous but one of several unique syndromes is implied. The possibility of safe concomitant dosages is not acknowledged, and therapeutic doses of DM are occasionally stated to be dangerous. The following descriptions of interaction dangers have been observed:
- psychosis or bizarre behavior (FDA)
- adrenergic crisis, collapse, coma, dizziness, excitation, hypertension, hyperpyrexia, intracerebral bleeding, lethargy, nausea, psychotic behavior, spasms, and tremors
- serotonin syndrome
- hypertensive crisis
- hyperpyrexia, hypotension, death
- has regularly been fatal (DXM FAQ)
- extra vitamin C
- easy access to 20 mg nifedipine in case of hypertension
- easy access to 500 mg naproxen
- access to nicotine
- automated blood pressure monitor
- digital thermometer
Roughly one hour after my morning TC dose of 30 mg at 9:00 AM, I began with an initial challenge dose of 15 mg DM and waited for two hours. Temperature and blood pressure were monitored regularly. Observing no obvious unusual effects, I followed with 30 mg DM. A similar waiting period elapsed before the addition of 60 mg. It seems likely hypomania was beginning to develop, as I mistakenly added another 60 mg within half an hour. Realizing the mistake (somewhat nervously), I allowed another waiting period. Having observed no alarming effects, I added 45 mg DM and shortly later finished with the remaining 90 mg at the same time as my 9:00 PM dose of 30 mg TC.
No significant increase in blood pressure or temperature was observed. Mood improved throughout the day, associated with increased alertness, attention, attention span, concentration, coordination, energy, reflexes, sociability, sweating, and talkativeness. Insomnia, obsessive behavior, and minor controllable jaw spasms developed later in the day, along with mild diplopia typical of recreational DM doses. Eventual tiredness near 4:00 AM produced immediate voluntary uninterrupted sleep lasting for fifteen hours with vivid dreaming leading eventually to nightmares which forced reawakening, likely due to TC schedule interruption and withdrawal.
No continuing interaction effects are apparent. TC withdrawal produced nasal and oral dryness as well as a prolonged unusual taste unresolved by food or attempts to cleanse the mouth. Mood and energy remain positive but normal for TC treatment. Attention span seems to have decreased, and distractibility increased, temporarily following waking.
It is obvious TC and DM produced robust hypomania beginning after the first supratherapeutic dose of DM and lasting for between seven and 22 hours following the last dose. Effects similar to those of amphetamines are apparent. Hypomania, sweating, jaw spasms, and hyperreflexia suggest mild serotonin syndrome.
- imprecise dose timing
- recent use of plant extracts, including chai, chocolate, coffee, ginseng, nicotine polacrilex, and Siberian root
Tranylcypromine (TC) and dextromethorphan (DM) interact. In certain individuals, the interaction between approved doses may produce serotonin syndrome without life-threatening effects. Combining TC and DM may be pleasurable but disruptive to normal activities, sleep, and medication scheduling. Further study is needed, especially due to the potential to be misled by existing inaccurate, incomplete, and inconsistent literature.
COPYRIGHTS: All reports are copyright Erowid.
Experience Reports are the writings and opinions of the individual authors who submit them.
Some of the activities described are dangerous and/or illegal and none are recommended by Erowid Center.

domain: health