Teacher Accused of Feeding Hot Sauce-Soaked Crayons to Autistic Child Being Reinstated

A judge has
ordered that a special needs teacher in Florida who was fired after
she was accused of feeding an autistic child crayons soaked in hot
sauce be reinstated. 

From
ABC News
:

A Florida elementary school teacher who was fired for feeding an
autistic child hot sauce soaked crayons is being re-instated on the
orders of a judge who rejected the school district’s appeal to keep
her out of the classroom.

Lillian Gomez was fired from her job at Sunrise Elementary
School in Kissimmee, Fla., in February 2012 after school officials
found out that Gomez had allegedly put jumbo-sized crayons in a cup
and soaked them for days in hot sauce before moving them to a bag
that was labeled with the student’s name.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don’t forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/13/teacher-accused-of-feeding-hot-sauce-soa
via IFTTT

‘One thing I can do!’

In the December 2013 issue of U.S. Catholic, the cover story is “Real Presence — What Catholics with developmental disabilities bring to the table.” On the inside of the magazine, there is a photo of a teenager with Down Syndrome leading the processional and carrying the processional cross. To me, it is a beautiful photo and brings back both memories and lessons.

read more

via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/david-epps/12-13-2013/one-thing-i-can-do

'One thing I can do!'

In the December 2013 issue of U.S. Catholic, the cover story is “Real Presence — What Catholics with developmental disabilities bring to the table.” On the inside of the magazine, there is a photo of a teenager with Down Syndrome leading the processional and carrying the processional cross. To me, it is a beautiful photo and brings back both memories and lessons.

read more

via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/david-epps/12-13-2013/one-thing-i-can-do

Guest Post: How the Paper Money Experiment Will End

Submitted by Philipp Bagus via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

A paper currency system contains the seeds of its own destruction. The temptation for the monopolist money producer to increase the money supply is almost irresistible. In such a system with a constantly increasing money supply and, as a consequence, constantly increasing prices, it does not make much sense to save in cash to purchase assets later. A better strategy, given this scenario, is to go into debt to purchase assets and pay back the debts later with a devalued currency. Moreover, it makes sense to purchase assets that can later be pledged as collateral to obtain further bank loans. A paper money system leads to excessive debt.

This is especially true of players that can expect that they will be bailed out with newly produced money such as big businesses, banks, and the government.

We are now in a situation that looks like a dead end for the paper money system. After the last cycle, governments have bailed out malinvestments in the private sector and boosted their public welfare spending. Deficits and debts skyrocketed. Central banks printed money to buy public debts (or accept them as collateral in loans to the banking system) in unprecedented amounts. Interest rates were cut close to zero. Deficits remain large. No substantial real growth is in sight. At the same time banking systems and other financial players sit on large piles of public debt. A public default would immediately trigger the bankruptcy of the banking sector. Raising interest rates to more realistic levels or selling the assets purchased by the central bank would put into jeopardy the solvency of the banking sector, highly indebted companies, and the government. It looks like even the slowing down of money printing (now called “QE tapering”) could trigger a bankruptcy spiral. A drastic reduction of government spending and deficits does not seem very likely either, given the incentives for politicians in democracies.

So will money printing be a constant with interest rates close to zero until people lose their confidence in the paper currencies? Can the paper money system be maintained or will we necessarily get a hyperinflation sooner or later?

There are at least seven possibilities:

1. Inflate. Governments and central banks can simply proceed on the path of inflation and print all the money necessary to bail out the banking system, governments, and other over-indebted agents. This will further increase moral hazard. This option ultimately leads into hyperinflation, thereby eradicating debts. Debtors profit, savers lose. The paper wealth that people have saved over their life time will not be able to assure such a high standard of living as envisioned.

2. Default on Entitlements. Governments can improve their financial positions by simply not fulfilling their promises. Governments may, for instance, drastically cut public pensions, social security and unemployment benefits to eliminate deficits and pay down accumulated debts. Many entitlements, that people have planned upon, will prove to be worthless.

3. Repudiate Debt. Governments can also default outright on their debts. This leads to losses for banks and insurance companies that have invested the savings of their clients in government bonds. The people see the value of their mutual funds, investment funds, and insurance plummet thereby revealing the already-occurred losses. The default of the government could lead to the collapse of the banking system. The bankruptcy spiral of overindebted agents would be an economic Armageddon. Therefore, politicians until now have done everything to prevent this option from happening.

4. Financial Repression. Another way to get out of the debt trap is financial repression. Financial repression is a way of channeling more funds to the government thereby facilitating public debt liquidation. Financial repression may consist of legislation making investment alternatives less attractive or more directly in regulation inducing investors to buy government bonds. Together with real growth and spending cuts, financial repression may work to actually reduce government debt loads.

5. Pay Off Debt. The problem of overindebtedness can also be solved through fiscal measures. The idea is to eliminate debts of governments and recapitalize banks through taxation. By reducing overindebtedness, the need for the central bank to keep interest low and to continue printing money is alleviated. The currency could be put on a sounder base again. To achieve this purpose, the government expropriates wealth on a massive scale to pay back government debts. The government simply increases existing tax rates or may employ one-time confiscatory expropriations of wealth. It uses these receipts to pay down its debts and recapitalize banks. Indeed the IMF has recently proposed a one-time 10-percent wealth tax in Europe in order to reduce the high levels of public debts. Large scale cuts in spending could also be employed to pay off debts. After WWII, the US managed to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio from 130 percent in 1946 to 80 percent in 1952. However, it seems unlikely that such a debt reduction through spending cuts could work again. This time the US does not stand at the end of a successful war. Government spending was cut in half from $118 billion in 1945 to $58 billion in 1947, mostly through cuts in military spending. Similar spending cuts today do not seem likely without leading to massive political resistance and bankruptcies of overindebted agents depending on government spending.

6. Currency Reform. There is the option of a full-fledged currency reform including a (partial) default on government debt. This option is also very attractive if one wants to eliminate overindebtedness without engaging in a strong price inflation. It is like pressing the reset button and continuing with a paper money regime. Such a reform worked in Germany after the WWII (after the last war financial repression was not an option) when the old paper money, the Reichsmark, was substituted by a new paper money, the Deutsche Mark. In this case, savers who hold large amounts of the old currency are heavily expropriated, but debt loads for many people will decline.

7. Bail-in. There could be a bail-in amounting to a half-way currency reform. In a bail-in, such as occurred in Cyprus, bank creditors (savers) are converted into bank shareholders. Bank debts decrease and equity increases. The money supply is reduced. A bail-in recapitalizes the banking system, and eliminates bad debts at the same time. Equity may increase so much, that a partial default on government bonds would not threaten the stability of the banking system. Savers will suffer losses. For instance, people that invested in life insurances that in turn bought bank liabilities or government bonds will assume losses. As a result the overindebtedness of banks and governments is reduced.

Any of the seven options, or combinations of two or more options, may lie ahead. In any case they will reveal the losses incurred in and end the wealth illusion. Basically, taxpayers, savers, or currency users are exploited to reduce debts and put the currency on a more stable basis. A one-time wealth tax, a currency reform or a bail-in are not very popular policy options as they make losses brutally apparent at once. The first option of inflat
ion is much more popular with governments as it hides the costs of the bail out of overindebted agents. However, there is the danger that the inflation at some point gets out of control. And the monopolist money producer does not want to spoil his privilege by a monetary meltdown. Before it gets to the point of a runaway inflation, governments will increasingly ponder the other options as these alternatives could enable a reset of the system.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/dae3HpRhYnc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Ronald Bailey Argues that the Supreme Court Should Kill Off Software Patents

TrollsThe Supreme Court has a chance to give innovation
a boost this year by rolling back one of the country’s most
economically stupid policies. With the case of
Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, the
justices will dive into the issue of whether companies should be
able to patent computer software.The Supreme Court has long held
that the laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey
argues that merely adding “on a computer” or “over the Internet” to
otherwise conventional processes like selling merchandise or
sliding an icon to unlock a cell phone should not be
patentable.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/13/ronald-bailey-argues-that-the-supreme-co
via IFTTT

Iran Quits Nuclear Talks After US Expands Blacklist Sanctions

“We are evaluating the situation and will make the appropriate response,” is how Iran’s lead negotiator Abbas Araqchi reacted after accusing Washington on Friday of going against the spirit of a landmark agreement reached last month by expanding its sanctions blacklist. As AFP reports, Iranian negotiators quit the implementation talks late on their fourth day Thursday after Washington blacklisted a dozen companies and individuals for evading US sanctions. US Secretary of State Kerry, ever the optimist we presume, said “we’re making progress, but I think we’re at a point in those talks where folks feel a need to consult, take a moment,” but Araqchi’s comments on State TV give them little room for compromise, America’s move “is by no means constructive and we are seriously critical of it.

 

Via AFP,

Iran has quit nuclear talks with world powers, accusing Washington on Friday of going against the spirit of a landmark agreement reached last month by expanding its sanctions blacklist.

 

 

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi said the US move went against the spirit of the deal struck in Geneva under which the powers undertook to impose no further sanctions for six months.

 

Tehran was now weighing the “appropriate response”, he said.

 

“America’s move is against the spirit of the Geneva deal,” Araqchi told the Fars news agency as his team headed back to Tehran from Vienna.

 

“We are evaluating the situation and will make the appropriate response.

 

“Such a measure is by no means constructive and we are seriously critical of it,” Araqchi later said on state television.

 

 

“The negotiations were halted by Iranian delegation because of new American sanctions. The Iranian negotiating team has halted the talks at this stage and are headed back to the capital due to America’s lack of commitment to the agreement,” Mehr reported.

 

Kerry said it was now time for consultations.

 

 

The blacklisting of a dozen additional foreign firms and individuals for evading US sanctions was widely seen as a way to head off moves in Congress to impose additional sanctions that would be in clear breach of the Geneva agreement.

 

Administration officials insisted the timing was entirely coincidental.

 

But just hours afterwards, Senate banking committee chairman Tim Johnson and the committee’s top Republican Michael Crapo agreed with the White House that Washington should not introduce new sanctions, warning they could “rupture” international unity against Tehran’s nuclear programme.

 

The comments virtually assured that no new sanctions legislation would pass Congress before the year-end break, although lawmakers could controversially introduce a new sanctions bill within the next week.

 

Those blacklisted on Thursday included the Singapore-based Mid Oil Asia and Singa Tankers, both companies accused of helping Iran transfer badly needed funds to a foreign bank on behalf of the National Iranian Tanker Company.

 

Well that didn’t last long did it?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/z_KX5onFZn8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Obamacare Has Lost the Uninsured

Obamacare has lost the uninsured.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News
poll released this week
asked uninsured individuals whether or
not they thought the law was a good idea. Just 24 percent said they
thought it was. In contrast, half the uninsured polled said they
thought it was a bad idea. As the Journal points out, that
represents an 11 point drop in support for the law amongst the
uninsured since September. The same poll also finds that 56 percent
of the uninsured believe the law will have a negative effect on the
U.S. health care system.

Let that sink in: What that means is that regardless of how bad
the old system—the system that for whatever reason left them
uninsured—was, a majority of people without health coverage now
think that Obamacare makes it worse. 

That’s how poorly the rollout of the health law is perceived to
have gone. The exact group the law was designed to help have
instead turned on the law. It’s never been particularly popular
with the wider public, but now even those who were supposed to be
beneficiaries are skeptical.

That’s more than a political problem. It’s a policy problem—a
threat to the law’s viability, especially when combined with other
recent poll numbers showing that young people, who are crucial to
the law’s coverage scheme, are rejecting the law as well. A Harvard
Institute of Politics Poll released earlier this month found that
56 percent of young adults age 18-29
don’t approve of the health law
. Only 29 percent of uninsured
young adults said they expected to enroll.

As the sharp declines of the last few months show, poll numbers
can always shift,  sometimes rapidly. But if these low numbers
persist, it represents a body blow for the law. It’s telling that
Americans are now so soured on Obamacare that a majority say they
would prefer to go back to the old system, flaws and all. As this
week’s Reason-Rupe poll found, 55 percent of Americans
now say they prefer
the old, pre-Obamacare health care
regime.

Numbers like those will help fuel efforts to repeal or otherwise
block the law, regardless of whether or not there’s a replacement.
They should also make Obamacare-friendly Democrats up for
reelection more than a little nervous.

When the health law passed back in 2010, the thinking amongst
many Democrats was that controversy around the overhaul would
eventually fade, and the law would become popular as people felt
its effects. Part of the thinking behind that argument was that the
American health system was already so bad that nothing could really
be worse. But nearly four years later, with the law’s health
exchanges launched, its various interim benefits in place, and its
biggest insurance market changes just weeks away from kicking in,
the verdict from the public is in: Obamacare isn’t just a bad
system. It’s a bad system that’s worse than the old bad system. And
at least for now, even the uninsured, the people who supposedly
stand to gain the most from the law, think so too.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/13/obamacare-has-lost-the-uninsured
via IFTTT

Is The Consumer Slowing Down?

Submitted by Lance Roberts Of STA Wealth Management,

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/aIlvP2XfsgQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden