text:
Home ATF ATF Death Watch 143: Why It Matters
Gun Nation
ATF Death Watch 143: Why It Matters
Robert Farago
The following's a brief message from the man who feeds me links on the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious (F&F) and other issues relating to U.S. Border Security and the illicit drug trade destroying the rule of law south of the border.
"I think we and all us covering this need to keep pointing out that one of the primary reasons the drug cartels and gangs run rampant is that the Mexican people have been disarmed. They lost their remaining RKBA [Right to Keep and Bear Arms] in the late 60's and early 70's, under the extremely corrupt PRI governments . . .
To obtain a firearm and ammo legally is almost impossible for the Mexican people. Numerous instances of drug gangs over running towns and villages throughout Mexico. But then if the Mexican people were able to fight back against the drug gangs, what if they decided to take on corruption next?
On the F&F links, more needs to be brought out on the hundreds or possible more Mexican citizens killed. Press the Mexican government for more details on that.
Also, over the last couple years since F&F surfaced, the Mexican government has suppressed details on firearms recovered. Typical reports before then would include make, model and serial number.
Strings on U.S. aid money? Any future "strings" on U.S. aid money should include restoration of Human Rights and RKBA to the people of Mexico."
Previous articleIrresponsible Gun Owner of the Day: Off Duty Chicago Cop
Next articleQuote of the Day: GTFO Edition
Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.
IdahoPete April 7, 2012 At 12:11
The Mexican government encourages the young men of Mexico to illegally cross the border into the USA for several reasons. One of them, of course, is the amount of money sent back to the families of the illegal migrants – it represents the 2nd or 3rd largest amount of money entering Mexico from across the border (below illegal drug money and oil exports to the US).
But another reason equally important to the Mexican power structure is that the young, unemployed males have historically been Mexico's "revolutionary class". By sending them to the US, Mexico decreases the chances of another revolution. With the US recession during the last three years, this group of young males is returning to Mexico – out of work, unhappy, and possibly revolutionary. No wonder the Mexican oligarchy wants to keep guns out of their hands.
ST April 7, 2012 At 12:46
As with many things,there are several angles to this problem and why the bloody status quo serves the powers that be.
One,gangs taking over towns may be a problem for the inhabitants but not for the corrupt Mexican local governor who takes a cut of the gang's payout.
Two,drug smuggling is big business.If America went to legalization,no more yachts,mistresses and limos for the cartel heads.The Mexican government would lose money too;no more U.S. Federal aid for narcotics teams or Federal police forces.And for the sprinkles on the cake,every Mexican who emigrates illegally to the USA represents a near certain vote to any politican who talks a good game one "amnesty for illegals".Ill let the reader figure out which politican benefits from that…..but the answer is Barrak Obama.
A. Ruiz April 7, 2012 At 13:24
It's no accident that Mexico's constitution is one of the few besides that US that acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms. But the corrupt sons of bitches, disarmed the populace in the late 60's because they were facing a youth revolution that wanted a democracy. Since there was only one single party and no real elections, the people of Mexico had absolutely no say in it.
koolaidguzzler April 7, 2012 At 16:50
That might be one of the reasons. But it's not one of the primary reasons. the primary reasons are that the cartels employ experienced killers with superior weaponry who have made it clear, through experience, that if you oppose them, they will capture, torture or merely kill your family. The cartels effectively use domestic terrorism to intimidate people from opposing them. Any mexican who wants an illegal gun can get one, as easy or easier than an american can. If mexican citizens were serious about resisting cartels, they would arm up. But they don't. It's much easier to try to live your life under the cartel radar, which most do successfully. After all, why wasn't there a popular armed uprising against the american mafia in the 40s, 50s, and 60s?
Ralph April 7, 2012 At 17:13
why wasn't there a popular armed uprising against the american mafia in the 40s, 50s, and 60s?
I give up — why?
Paul April 7, 2012 At 18:39
During the period of WWII, 1941-1945, the Mob or organized crime ran the water fronts, on both sides of the country, with the blessing of the government. The unions were to scared to fight the powers that were in charge. In the 50's the government was to concerned about the "…red scare…" to worry about the mob on any higher level than what they considered neccessary. In the 60's the mob was running Las Vegas, which during that time was virtually crime free.
The govt. was running a little known war called vietnam. Again their direction was aimed at the red scare, and the trouble makers in the equal rights movement. At what point did you want the govt. to go after the bad guys? They were far to busy watching the citizens to make any in roads into organized crime.
Now we are saddled with a govt. that is itself selling guns, drugs, and money laundering. We have an Attorney General that supports a commie muslim, with one idea in mind. That is to destroy this nation! Keep your friends close, keep your guns closer!
Tom April 8, 2012 At 07:59
Drug Control, Gun Control, and a corrupt Government fuels the chaos in Mexico. Drug Control and a corrupt Government in the USA fuels chaos in Mexico.
best Water Damage Removal company July 27, 2012 At 03:38
Normally I don't read post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very pressured me to take a look at and do it! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thank you, very nice article.
danh sách khách sạn phan thiết giá rẻ March 23, 2014 At 15:17
Great goods from you, man. I have take into accout your stuff previous to and you
are just too magnificent. I really like what you've bought right here, really like what you are stating
and the best way through which you are saying it.
You are making it enjoyable and you still take care of
to keep it wise. I can't wait to learn much more from you.
du lich singapore bao nhieu tien April 25, 2014 At 00:54
You actually make it appear so easy along with your presentation however I find this topic to be
really something that I feel I would by no means
understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I'm having a look ahead
for your subsequent put up, I will attempt to get the


Julia Kern's daughter, Amy, has been struggling after the car accident that took her father's life. Amy's problems at school lead to a suspension that only complicates the situations overwhelming Julia. With the possibility of losing her job just as Garrett, her boyfriend, is leaving for a new job thousands of miles away, the suspension is the last straw. Packing up she and Amy head to an old inn for a weekend away from their problems, but the inn has it's own haunting troubles... literally.
Garrett's new job is a once in a lifetime opportunity but leaving behind Julia and the little girl he has come to care for is not so easy. Knowing Julia could use some moral support Garrett arrives at the inn to surprise the mother-daughter duo. But his role will quickly become that of protector as a spectral mother-daughter duo threatens to take Julia and Amy from him forever.
It's not every day the hero and heroine of a romance are already together at the start of a story and this one made it work big time. MERCY was spine chilling with the ghostly elements, moving with the struggle Julia and Amy were facing, and fiercely romantic. I loved Garrett! There's a special place in my heart for any hero willing to take on another man's child as his own and the love he felt for Amy was well written. He wasn't just there for Julia, he loved Amy too. That's powerful stuff. MERCY manages to be a great spooky story with a family element that may or may not work for readers, I thought it made for a refreshingly good story I could re-read over and over.
If you look for something a little suspenseful and supernatural but romantic during the month of October look no further. It's a quick and satisfying read on multiple levels. I will definitely be watching Coffey for more short stories like this.


text:
Behind the scenes in the hospital
When people think of hospitals many may think of doctors, nurses and beeping machines that take blood pressure and monitor vitals. However, what goes on behind the scenes is just as important.Behind the scenes there are many individuals in the Langley Hospital who ensure that all personnel are able
"First to the Fight": F-22 Raptor and T-38 Talon train over Atlantic
U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors and U.S. Air Force T-38 Talons from the 1st Fighter Wing fly in formation of the Atlantic Ocean during training off the coast of Virginia, Oct. 30, 2019. The 1st Fighter Wing is home to the 94th Fighter Squadron, 27th Fighter Squadron and the 71st Fighter Training
Ballet Folklorico: an Airman's culture expressed through dance
The colorful fabric drapes over her skin. Bountiful lace and ribbon ordains the dress, a timeless style reminiscent of her roots. It sways effortlessly with a simple movement of her wrist. To enhance the traditional design, she applies bold makeup to couple the dress' vibrancy. As she retrieves a
Suicide Prevention Walk Brings H.O.P.E
Every day, approximately 123 individuals take their own lives in the United States. Of those individuals, U.S. military members and veterans make up 18 percent of adult suicides.
Swimming laps around the world
She dives into the pool, as the cool water envelopes her body and she begins to feel weightless. She comes to the surface kicking and pulling, feeling the water begin to rush past her as she picks up speed until she's at a full sprint… Preparation to be the fastest in the world has begun. "My mom
Protect yourself: National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
It's October and the National Cyber Security Awareness Month celebration has arrived, marking its 16th anniversary. Hosted by the Department of Homeland Security, NCSAM was created as a collaborative effort between government and industry to ensure every American has the resources they need to stay
Go To Page of 10

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
There's a Toxic Weed Killer on the Menu in K-12 Schools Across the US
Jan 8, 2019Ruben Diaz
Source: Truthout
By Caroline Cox, Center for Environmental Health
This article was co-produced by the Center of Environmental Health and Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and originally published by Truthout.
Many parents cheered about 10 years ago when Michelle Obama took on the important task of improving school meals. Of course, every child should have a healthy lunch and breakfast. Most of us have school cafeteria stories; I still remember the feeling of failure I had decades ago when I realized my daughters never had time to eat more than their dessert before joining the stampede for recess.
Ms. Obama's work — and the work of many other concerned parents, teachers and staff — sparked significant improvements in school menus, some of which are now being undone by the current administration (allowing children to eat food with more salt and less whole grain). Schools must once again take another step forward.
If you haven't met glyphosate (Roundup) yet, allow me to introduce you. Glyphosate is the most widely used pesticide in the US. Its use has skyrocketed during the last 20 years because of the popularity of genetically-modified crops that are tolerant of this weed killer. Health concerns about glyphosate have also skyrocketed since 2015 when the World Health Organization evaluated its ability to cause cancer.
Glyphosate's evaluation as a probable carcinogen is scary and was recently validated by a jury that awarded a school groundskeeper a multimillion-dollar judgment against Monsanto/Bayer because he had developed cancer after years of Roundup use. The decision has paved the way for thousands of other cancer patients and families to seek justice and compensation in court.
Glyphosate is now in most of us: Recent biomonitoring studies have detected it in the urine samples of 70 to 93 percent of the US population.
Even scarier, recent research has demonstrated that glyphosate can disrupt our body's hormones, those vital molecules that manage growth, development, behavior, sex and more.
Exposing children, with their developing bodies, to a chemical that can cause cancer and hormone dysfunction is wrong. It's especially wrong for children simply eating breakfast at school, who often are from low-income families. This fact has spurred the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health (CEH), where I serve as the senior scientist, to measure glyphosate contamination in breakfast cereals and bars served at schools. Although our study was small, the results were striking.
We found significant contamination in 70 percent of the products we tested, including big name brands like Quaker, whose glyphosate contamination was more than six times the safety threshold developed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Cheerios, whose glyphosate contamination was more than five times the EWG safety threshold.
Our findings corroborate a growing list of recent studies demonstrating the presence of glyphosate in children's foods, including preliminary findings by CEH in August, as well as those by the EWG, Moms Across America, Food Democracy Now and the Food and Drug Administration.
Because our study was small, and there is not much government testing of glyphosate contamination in popular grocery items, there may be other contaminated products at your school or grocery store. We just don't know. We did recently find glyphosate contamination in King Arthur bread flour. King Arthur is the fourth-largest seller of flour in the country, consumed by approximately 16.61 million Americans this year. King Arthur bread flour is used for more than just baking bread, the company also claims "it strengthens whole-grain pastries, makes cookies crispier, and when combined with all-purpose flour, creates chewier pizza crusts and more tender muffins." If we found it in commonly sold wheat flour, where else might it be?
Fortunately, there is a straightforward way to reduce the amount of glyphosate that our students consume. Certified organic foods are grown without glyphosate and the ones that we have tested are uncontaminated. Thus, we are asking schools to buy these organic cereals and bars. Some organic food is more expensive than conventionally grown food, but even a partial switch reduces the amount of this pesticide that students are eating and increases the market for organics, setting up the economies of scale that will lower prices.
Further, switching to organic cereals in the short term and advocating for stronger chemical regulation in the long term is beneficial to all eaters, especially people who are exposed to the highest levels of pesticides because of their work, such as groundskeepers and farmworkers.
What can parents do? Here are three steps to help protect you and your family:
Buy organic cereals for your family whenever they are affordable and available for you.
Ask your children's schools to add organic cereals to their menus. For advice about effective ways to do this, contact us at food@ceh.org.
Tell the CEO of General Mills to get rid of glyphosate in Cheerios and other cereal products by switching to organic oats. Children aren't test subjects and parents deserve warning labels.
Monsanto (now Bayer) made hundreds of millions of dollars in 2017 from herbicide sales. We need to demand a change. Cancer-causing chemicals do not belong in children's meals, whether served at home, at school or a child care center.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


text:
#if !PLATFORM(IOS)

#import <WebKitLegacy/WebNSEventExtras.h>

@implementation NSEvent (WebExtras)

-(BOOL)_web_isKeyEvent:(unichar)key
{
    int type = [self type];
#pragma clang diagnostic push
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations"
    if (type != NSKeyDown && type != NSKeyUp)
#pragma clang diagnostic pop
        return NO;

    NSString *chars = [self charactersIgnoringModifiers];
    if ([chars length] != 1)
        return NO;

    unichar c = [chars characterAtIndex:0];
    if (c != key)
        return NO;

    return YES;
}

- (BOOL)_web_isDeleteKeyEvent
{
    const unichar deleteKey = NSDeleteCharacter;
    const unichar deleteForwardKey = NSDeleteFunctionKey;
    return [self _web_isKeyEvent:deleteKey] || [self _web_isKeyEvent:deleteForwardKey];
}

- (BOOL)_web_isEscapeKeyEvent
{
    const unichar escapeKey = 0x001b;
    return [self _web_isKeyEvent:escapeKey];
}

- (BOOL)_web_isOptionTabKeyEvent
{
#pragma clang diagnostic push
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations"
    return ([self modifierFlags] & NSAlternateKeyMask) && [self _web_isTabKeyEvent];
#pragma clang diagnostic pop
}

- (BOOL)_web_isReturnOrEnterKeyEvent
{
    const unichar enterKey = NSEnterCharacter;
    const unichar returnKey = NSCarriageReturnCharacter;
    return [self _web_isKeyEvent:enterKey] || [self _web_isKeyEvent:returnKey];
}

- (BOOL)_web_isTabKeyEvent
{
    const unichar tabKey = 0x0009;
    const unichar shiftTabKey = 0x0019;
    return [self _web_isKeyEvent:tabKey] || [self _web_isKeyEvent:shiftTabKey];
}

@end

#endif // !PLATFORM(IOS)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


A video essay collaboration on Jacques Rivette's "Out 1". The second in a series commissioned by the Melbourne International Film Festival.
This video essay collaboration on Jacques Rivette's Out 1 is the second entry in the Out 1 Video Essay Project commissioned by the Melbourne International Film Festival. The first entry, by Cristina Álvarez López and Adrian Martin, can be found here.
Part of the impact of Out 1 derives from the way it captures several aspects of transatlantic 60s counterculture, but the differences between North America and France during this period are telling. Psychedelic drug culture hadn't yet made many discernible inroads, although things we associate with that culture—especially LSD trips and changing perceptions of duration—seem present in some form, especially in Colin's solipsistic fantasies and preoccupations and some of the "tribal" rituals of the theater group's exercises. Politics were also perceived differently, above all because of the experience of May 1968 and all that it represented.
Class plays an important role with both Colin and Frédérique. As we discover when we hear Colin on the phone with his parents, he seems to come from a middle-class background, matching in some respects the characters of Antoine Doinel (especially after The 400 Blows) and his role in Masculin-Féminin; Frédérique is defiantly and proudly working-class, as she is in La Chinoise. For him, the "13" is a literary puzzle derived from Lewis Carroll and Balzac; for her it functions as a means for extracting money via extortion and/or blackmail. They each inhabit fantasies, but his are intellectual and "high" literary whereas hers are seemingly derived from pop culture and its pulpy literary sources. Both qualify as highly physical actors whose gestures evoke silent cinema—not only because of Colin's muteness, although that helps; Berto has her own arsenal of disguises and impersonations, which similarly evoke all the duplicitous characters in Feuillade serials. Some of their encounters with strangers are flirtatious (e.g., Berto with Doniol-Valcroze and Stévenin; Léaud with Ogier), and their means of being flirtatious is often to behave like children.
Léaud and Berto are two of the actors most identified with the New Wave, along with Lafont, Fabian, and Rohmer (not to mention other writers identified with Cahiers du Cinéma: Michel Delahaye, Jacques Doniol-Valcroze, and—in one scene—Bernard Eisenschitz). In some respects, the "13" evokes Cahiers' "Conseil des Dix"—or, more precisely, the clique of Young Turks associated with the Cahiers, outsiders who dream of becoming insiders.
Two fleeting scenes, two different films, two different cities at two different times, yet somehow the women exert the same pull in both.


I can be found at Three Sheets, a neighbourhood bar in Dalston where this drink can also be sipped from our current menu.
Up there in my favourite drinks of all time is the vodka martini. Vodka is also one of my favourite things so when asked to create a drink with the victory range, it just made sense.
This drink still has all the best qualities of a classic vodka martini. Super clean, but has this amazing bright earthy note flowing through.
We've used Faude Feine Beetroot spirit in this, it's produced in a small distillery in South Germany and has this wonderfully clean and very intense beetroot flavour. When used in a small amount as below it works perfectly with the notes of green coffee in Victory Vodka.
Max from Victory had been experimenting with an olive oil distillate (Victory Olio*) and he brought some in for us to try. At this point, I'd already got the backbone for this drink and when I tried that instantly realised it was the missing piece!
Victory now distil the olive oil we stock in the bar for us and we add some to this drink!
"Three Sheets is the cocktail world's best example of beauty in simplicity. This tiny space in London's Dalston is the result of the uncluttered philosophy of brothers Max and Noel Venning – there are 30 seats, a single shelf of spirits and a dozen cocktails to choose from. It's this execution of the basics and the creation of easy-on-the-palate twists on classics that has made this bar a firm favourite of the trade – there isn't another place in London where you'll find more off-duty bartenders per square foot."
*Victory Olio is currently not available to buy but this may change!


text:
The Playlist of Kitodar Todorov
13 April 2017 text Emanuela Ivanova photo Aneliya Todorova
A few weeks ago we rushed in Friday at 5 sharp to get ourselves some quick humour with the two season of the YouTube show. That's when we came across Address to the nation - a video which redirected us to an Indiegogo campaign that is raising money for season 3.
Today is Sunday but we're at Friday bar with Kitodar Todorov who's convincing us to put our dollar in his money box with a cause and he managed for an hour and a half - and with no pep talk, but with the inspirations from music, television and film that are playing in his head while he's making us laugh.
The movie you remember from your childhood
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
I remember that my mother didn't take me to see this movie when it was in cinemas in Bulgaria. Decades later, when I finally saw it, I realised that I perfectly remember the final scene that I once saw as an extract on TV.
The show you wished you've starred in
Ulicata - No to joy
It was a great show and I miss something like it on television today. This is one of my most favourite videos from it.
The most difficult video you've ever done
Address To The Nation
It was my idea to film it in Spanish, even though I don't speak the language. it took me 20 days to memorise the text because I have difficulties learning by heart.
The song you've been playing for years
Bach - Prelude and Fugue in C Minor
It is part of a whole decade of my life and I can't share a specific story because my memories are strictly emotional - I remember the feeling I associate a song with and sometimes the season, but never the whole story.
The series you can watch over and over again
It could be Breaking Bad but the thing is - I've never seen it. I don't watch series and I have no explanation for that. I know I'll like some of them but there is always something else happening.
The song that gives you ideas for your comedy
Tom Waits - Innocent When You Dream
It may sound strange but mu comedy comes from sadness and darkness. That the things I dive into the get inspirations.
The last movie you saw in cinema and really liked
Queen Of The Dessert
I don't like big crowd so I don't often do to the movies but at a festival in Varna I recently saw Queen Of the Dessert and I liked it because of the nice portrayal of the Arab world - I like this region because of the respect that people there have of each other.


Folding chairs may be your perfect partner to your highly rated folding tables, and arranging seats when some guests get in. Since they offer many benefits, they are an essential part of a range of furniture. They are the right choice, especially when people tend to build small homes. Folding chairs give you an option to expand them when your friends or guests are visiting your place, or you can fold them and store inside a sack. These chairs are not just most space-efficient seating options, but also very easy to transport, which is ideal for outdoor parties. HomeTown offers you a wide variety of folding chairs online for any application, both indoor and outdoor!
Folding chairs that are available for online shopping at HomeTown have a breakthrough in portability, comfort, and durability. The curved design is ergonomically contoured to fit every seater. Lightweight allows easy to transport and ensures that comfort wherever you go. Be it indoor assemblies, outdoor events or guest seating at your home, HomeTown folding chairs are ideal for any group and age of people.
Made of dozens of different materials, our folding chairs come with modern styles, different sizes, and in various colors.
HomeTown has different folding chair frame materials: metal, plastic, and wood. So, you can have the perfect balance of durability, function, and style for your home and office.
Many of our folding chairs are designed to have padded seats. They feature to provide you with extra comfort for longer events. If you want a padded seat, make sure you would like fabric or vinyl.
You can buy wooden folding chairs online at HomeTown in different sizes. We also have a variety of colors available, ranging from classic black to orange, green, and red. Choose the color that matches the style and theme of your venue for a cohesive look.
HomeTown stocks a variety of folding chairs that are great for comfort, durability, storage, and transportation. Our folding chairs are not only durable, and easy to store, but also well designed and available at affordable prices. No assembly required. Just unpack them and place wherever you want. So, explore folding chair deals online at HomeTown and arrange a perfect seating plan.


text:
Wednesday 22 January 2020 | Expat feed
Mother-of-three loses extradition appeal bid
A mother-of-three who fled to England from America with her three children after her marriage broke down 14 years ago has lost her High Court bid to avoid extradition to face kidnap charges.
Eileen Clark with her two sons Chandler (L) and Hayden Photo: WILL WINTERCROSS
12:30PM GMT 23 Feb 2012
Lawyers for Eileen Clark, 54, claimed she had been living openly in the UK since December 1998 and that the first she knew that she was being sought in America was when she was named by the FBI on a "most wanted" list.
Judges at the High Court were told it would be "oppressive" to extradite her because of worsening psychiatric problems and her fear of flying.
Her lawyers also criticised US authorities for not seeking her return earlier as she had put down "deep roots" in the UK.
She was supported by a former husband Ron Woolsey and her children Chandler , 24, Hayden, 22, and Rebekah, 19.
The former model and aerobics teacher had left her New Mexico home in 1998 a year after her divorce from the children's father and her first husband John Clark, and moved to Oxford with the children even though they had joint custody.
Mother who fled failed marriage faces extradition battle
UK extradition laws to US 'unfair', say campaigners
Duchess of York evades extradition over TV row
The court was told it was an unhappy marriage, but that after she left her ex husband launched court proceedings against her.
But she was accused by the US of of "custodial interference " and "international parental kidnapping" and following a request for her return was arrested by the Metropolitan Police in July 2010. Her children were labelled "endangered adults."
Although the children, all students in this country, have spoken to US authorities to say they are safe and want to stay in the UK with their mother, the US has demanded her return to face the charges.
Now, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton sitting with Mr Justice Underhill has upheld the granting of an extradition order by District Judge Riddle at Westminster Magistrates Court in March last year who said. The decision was backed by the Home Secretary in May.
In dismissing her appeal Mr. Justice Underhill said: "We accept there will be hardship for the appellant if she is returned to the US to stand trial , but we do not believe that hardship can properly be characterised as oppressive."
Now Mrs Clark has just 14 days to seek to appeal to the Supreme Court . If that fails she could be on a plane to America 28 days later under the controversial US-UK extradition treaty.
USA »
Expat News »
Expat Wealth
Telegraph International Money Transfer
In Expat
Expat picture galleries
Join our MyExpat community
International car hire and vehicle rental
The Telegraph Weekly World Edition
Kosciusko-Morizet: I want to lure French back from London
Expat Home»
Expat Money
Expat Feedback
MyExpat
Expat Health
Expat Education
Expat Directory


This Psalm is right up to date, for both modern Israel and Christians! The Psalms are an eloquent series from God for all eras; the primary audience is ancient Israel, but its message can be applied to both Jews and Christians today. Satan will stop at nothing to harm God's people, just as he did not stop in the days of David. So, read this text with interest and a desire to learn and act. The Psalms are incredibly satisfying to read and meditate upon, having rich pools of wisdom and godly insight. This is a tough Psalm; do you have the courage to read and implement it?
(A Song or Psalm of Asaph.) Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God.
Another Psalm by Asaph. He pleads with God (again referred to as 'elohiym, to emphasise His might) to speak out, to act, against His enemies (who are, of course, also enemies of His people). Here 'silence' is used because Asaph cannot hear God or see Him acting on their behalf, one meaning being to be 'cut off', dĕmiy, or to cease speaking. Of course, silence from the Lord may not always be cessation of His help or closeness – it just means we are unaware of anything happening.
Do not hold Your peace, pleads Asaph – charash – please speak and do not conceal Your intention; do not be deaf to our prayers. "be not still, O God". This second use of 'God' is the root of 'elohiym – 'el (which has an indirect reference to Immanuel). "be not still" is another way of asking God not to be apart, or to 'rest' and be quiet, shaqat. To ask God the same thing in three different ways is an indication of how worried Asaph and the people were. Many modern believers are afraid to speak so frankly to God... but it is what he wants us to do!
Asaph points out to God – though He already knows it – that His, and the people's, enemies are daring to rise up against Israel, making a tumult, hamah, a verb meaning to make great noise, to gather together with wicked intent, to express rage. It is what happens when the unsaved see no action on the part of either God or Christians! They make exploratory moves against us, testing our resolve and implying God is no longer with us – if He exists at all.
At all times when we have an enemy, he hates us and God. It is an automatic coupling. Which is why I warn believers against befriending people of Islam, no matter how pleasant some may be. Their animosity is personal as well as national - 'oyeb. This word is an active participle of 'ayab, meaning to be hostile.
In the case of Islam in particular I would again warn readers that Muslims are instructed to appear friendly to our faces but hateful towards us in their hearts. This is enabled by another teaching – to lie, taqiyya, if it furthers Islam and helps Allah. It is a major reason why I cannot ever trust a Muslim, whether or not he is pleasant. Asaph and the Israelites knew how to recognise enemies – but it seems modern Christians are too slow and naive to do so, hampered by personal friendships, so they befriend those who hate God which, of course, is a sin.
God's enemies (and ours) spend their time devising ways to bring us down. They "take crafty counsel" – their plans being subtle, prolonged and stealthy ('aram). Their sole purpose is to destroy God's people and His word. Both homosexuals and Muslims have been busy in this wicked way for many years. What they do is done in secret (cowd) until they know their subterfuge and deception has met with willing cohorts in government and the media, who then help them in their foul designs.
We see the same cowardly deception happening in the work of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin; they could not bring Jesus down with their arguments, so their real motive is made clear – forget the arguments, just kill Him! Our modern enemies want all Christians out of the way... not the wishy-washy ones who comply, but those who stand firm and witness to the glory of God and His truth. Enemies have no time for the weak Christians, because they will obey Satan, and them, anyway.
The enemies met together to plan their strategy to be rid of truth and those who tell it. They even searched high and low for the "hidden ones", the tsaphan; God's people here referred to as hidden treasure in secret places. In today's homosexual assault on society, these wicked people have rooted out every possible refuge for believers, using law to punish and ruin. In doing so they have devised laws that are remarkably more comprehensive than any other laws of the land, leaving no 'loophole', such is their hatred for God and His people.
In David's day enemies said "Let us cut them off from being a nation." The aim was not just to destroy Israel, but to erase all mention of the Jews for all of time, as if they had never existed. But, they did not fully succeed. In modern times, destruction began with Hitler, but now continues in his children, the terroristic Islamists, the UN, and many who are anti-Semitic. Total annihilation is their objective.
But, the same attitude is taken towards Christians, who are the only bulwark against vile sexual, Islamic and other evils. This is now why socialists in the USA want to get rid of the new president, who promises not just a respite from wicked Obama plans, but a reversal of all his evil policies. The new president may not be all he should be – but he is being used of God to oppose the truly horrendous ways of Obama and Democrats. Do not think this is just a political argument – politics is in everything we do, Christian or not. Unfortunately, very few Christians understand this and remain silent, so long as they are left alone. But, they will only be left alone if they comply with wickedness.
Then, as now, wicked enemies want to be rid of everything to do with God and His word. Yet, EVERYTHING is to do with God and His word! God rules, whether or not enemies like it. He favours His people, to the wrathful indignation of enemies! By ignoring all this, weak Christians set themselves up as targets and fools.
Our enemies will join together with other enemies if it means our demise, and if it means the removal of God from society. It does not matter if the various groups agree with each other, because an enemy can be unscrupulous, having no genuine beliefs and affiliations. Their commonality is hatred.
The oddest people will collaborate in order to get their own way. They gather with one express purpose, disregarding the fact that they have no intellectual or spiritual basis on which to operate. Thus, they 'confederate', or become one league, pledging to attack those they hate. Is this not what is happening to Christians today?
"The tabernacles of..." here means homes or tribal tents, and so a reference to the tribes themselves, listed as contemporary enemies of Israel: Edom (also known as Idumea) and the Edomites, descendants of Esau. Then there were the Ishmaelites, descendants of Ishmael (son of Abraham) and of modern Arabs and so Muslims.
The Moabites were another enemy, descendants of a son of Lot, along with the Hagarenes or Hagarites (the Hagari); they lived east of Israel where Bahrain now stands (Reuben's tribe warred against them in the time of Saul).
There were many more enemies than that – just like today! Others were the people of Gebal. These lived on Edomite territory in the mountain region running south from the Dead Sea to Petra (not to be confused with the town near Tyre). They were joined by the Ammonites, also descended from Lot through his son Ben-ammi (via an incestuous relationship), and living in Transjordan.
Then there were the Amalekites, more descendants of Esau, east of the Dead Sea. The Phoenician city of Tyre/Tyrus were also enemies at one time, as were the infamous Philistines/Pĕlesheth who lived further south on the coast, between the Mediterranean and Israel.
As if they were not enough, others were enemies, such as Assur/Assyria, who often were in league with the "children of Lot". They descended from the second son of Shem. Asaph brings in a musical pause at this point, before reminding God of His anger at enemies previously.
Here we have yet another example of imprecatory prayer coming from the House of David! Most Christians are afraid to even think of imprecatory prayer to get rid of their enemies. David and His rule were never afraid to utter this kind of prayer! In a war you do not subdue an enemy by sending love notes – you shoot them. Come across an individual enemy hiding in a bush and perhaps you can approach him with mercy, but that is not a general thing to do in war... and we are in a war situation today, just as Israel was when Asaph wrote this psalm. Recognise it and deal with it, not as a weak-spined deluded people, but as realists living godly lives!
Asaph reminds God of what He did to enemies previously, and asks God to likewise vanquish the current enemies: "Do unto them" as You did to the Midianites, descendants of Abraham who lived in the northern desert of Arabia. He then reminded God of the way He used brave individuals to aid Israel, such as Jael who killed general Sisera of Hazor. The brook Kison was a river running through central Israel, and was where Sisera's army (and thus king Jabin) was defeated.
This enemy was obliterated at the fountain of Dor (En-dor) north of Tabor. As Asaph noted, the name of this enemy was to become a word associated with dung, such was their evil. Asaph then makes further imprecations, asking God to deal with the present enemies as He did with others before, such as Oreb, a leader of the Midianites when Gideon defeated him upon a rock, and Zeeb, a Midianite prince found hiding in a winepress and killed before the Midian army was chased and killed; both had their heads cut off. Modern Christians will not like it, but the psalmist asks God to similarly kill the enemies who bay for the blood of Israel.
Zebah and Zalmunna were both kings of Midian defeated by Gideon. They were defeated by God's power, because they boasted they would take hold of God's "houses", na'ah – that is, Israelites and anywhere God was worshipped. Their fates show us that God watches over His children, even today, and comes to their aid, destroying those wicked enemies who think they are above God, Who they say does not exist.
Asaph does not hold back his desires to see the enemies completely destroyed (how different from modern believers who think it is godly to ask God to be with enemies of Himself and us!). No, Asaph legitimately called on God to make Israel's enemies "like a wheel"; that is, like a whirlwind of dust, hence "as stubble before the wind", or chaff that floats in the air as something without worth.
Another simile is used – for God to act on enemies "as the fire burneth a wood", and as a forest fire tears through trees leaving nothing alive. Asaph makes the imprecatory nature of his prayer even bolder: "persecute them with thy tempest"! As a modern Christian do you dare to be so open about your feelings towards enemies? I never believe people who claim to 'love' those who do them harm! Why should I when even psalmists (including David) called on God to remove enemies, even with killing power! ("Love your enemy" is not applicable in these circumstances).
Asaph is not content with the enemy remaining alive, but calls on God to persecute them, to actively chase after them until they are no more... vengeance is the Lord's, but it is acceptable for His children to call upon Him to practice that vengeance! Do not pretend you 'love' your enemy when you clearly do not. Asaph prays that the Lord would chase after the enemy with His "tempest", ca'ar – the storm of His wrath, of hurricane strength, taking everything in its path.
Many today think it is somehow 'godly' to ask God to 'save' enemies. This does not make sense... for our enemies are His enemies, and if He has elected some enemies to salvation He will let us know. It is not our duty to pray scatter-gun prayers that are useless; we should only pray for the salvation of those individuals we are led to approach personally. All else is worthless.
Meanwhile, the general approach to enemies, if they refuse to be at peace with us, is oppositional, and our prayers should be imprecatory, seeking their removal or destruction by God (sometimes through human means). Think hard about what is being said in this text! Note, too, that we should ask God to make our enemies afraid of attacking us and rejecting God. Are you afraid to utter such realistic prayers and taking appropriate action?
Furthermore, Asaph wants the enemies to be humiliated before the nations. Today, diplomacy (lying) takes the place of truth, and enemies are always placated, making them feel good. And this leads to our downfall. We should say "Fill their faces with shame"! In this text 'shame', qalown, means to be disgraced, dishonoured, and treated as nothing. This is how we should treat Islamic terrorists, their countries, and their religion. Because this is how God sees them. (The same can be said of homosexuals). We must never allow enemies like this to be awarded worth, when they are worthless before God.
The purpose of all this is not primarily to kill enemies, but to make them think of God and His word. It is also the aim of genuine discipline in the churches. What if the enemy refuses to listen and continues to attack God and us? Then we may call for their destruction. They can then be destroyed without hesitation, with imprecation.
(In this verse 'God' is Jehovah, thus emphasising not just His power but His unique position as the ONLY God. Never be afraid to tell others that our Lord is the ONLY God, especially in days of Islamic terror and 'political correctness'. In recent days two preachers have been convicted for telling hearers that our God is the only God, and our Saviour is the only way to Heaven. God will protect them, and the judges are to be put to shame. Will YOU put them to shame with your open support for the preachers and the uniqueness of scripture??).
Do not feel afraid of the enemy. Instead "Let them be confounded" – confused, and 'troubled' (afraid/amazed/dismayed) "for ever". This can mean 'perpetually', but it also means for eternity. Thus, imprecation does not allow enemies a soft option; it does not let us pray for their well-being. Rather, we should call on God to damage them for life, and to send them to a godless eternity, if they do not repent and stop. Is this not what godly Asaph is saying? "yea, let them be put to shame, and perish"!
Do you really understand the significance of what I am saying, and what Asaph is asking God to do? Then follow the example! Satan, whether himself or through our enemies, gives no quarter. Do not be soft-hearted and give the enemy the opportunity to strike again. Call down God's power and wrath from Heaven. The enemy must be humiliated, shamed, and embarrassed (chafer). Continually I read of Christians who want to be 'alongside' homosexuals and Islamists, to make them feel loved! This is anathema, because it is not what God wishes for them. Call these people what they truly are, free of our meagre emotional ideas and sympathy. Call for them to "perish", 'abad - to be destroyed utterly, with no escape.
Why? "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." In our own day, do you have more regard for helping and befriending our enemies, mainly homosexuals and Islamists, than you have for God and His word? Then I pity you and warn you that God does not sleep: He sees and hears your pathetic refusal to utter imprecatory prayers against His enemies. Asaph felt it necessary to call upon God to obliterate the enemies.
Today, our enemies are gathering as dark clouds around us, made bold by law and government, and unchallenged as violent and wicked men. We deserve our sorry state for not having a realistic notion of what to do, and by not pointing fingers of blame where it belongs.
These are strong words, but not any stronger than the words of Asaph to Almighty God, the great and only Jehovah, the self-existing One, the one true God, the Most High. There is no other God – and it is about time believers shouted this out before the true infidels: the Islamists, the homosexuals, and all enemies of us and God. Let God use this study to drive Christians onward with immense power. Remember – it is a direct interpretation of what God's word actually says. Amen.


Adobe has released a slick, new version of their Kuler website. Kuler is a fantastic way to generate palettes of colors and the Kuler community gives you a way to share and search for palettes used by others.
In addition, Adobe has released a new Kuler iPhone app for capturing color palettes on the go, even using the iPhone's built-in camera to grab colors from the real world.
Through the Kuler website you can download these palettes as Adobe Swatch Exchange (ASE) files which can be dragged into Curio's mind map inspector popover for instant branch coloring. It's a slick way to produce amazing looking mind maps.
Curio 8.4 - relationship lines!


Gatwick airport to Hunstanton and Hunstanton to Gatwick airport, taxi to different terminals and to the any UK airport is provided by Jewels Airport transfers. We offer a special Airport taxi transfer services available 24/7 for the customers. If you are planning to visit the UK, to book your favourite taxi now. We will make sure that everything is available for you on time and offer a smooth and reliable airport taxi transfer. We have a team of experienced drivers having extensive knowledge about the different areas and proven customer handling skills. Drivers are well trained and speak excellent English, so there will be no communication gap and your journey will be safe. You can hire a transport from our extensive range as per the requirement. For taxi transfers, our changes are fixed, no additional or hidden charges are included, so you going to have a reliable and budget-friendly journey in admired transportation.
You can book the taxi in just a few simple clicks, just visit the home page and fill the form in which you have to submit to postcode for pickup and drop-off, apply the Instant Quote and pick the taxi from available options. Once you have mentioned the required information and submit the details, your journey will be confirmed. After confirmation, we will immediately send you an email for confirmation in which all details regarding driver, pickup instructions and payments will be provided. To share the distance details and quoted amount, a separate email will be sent to you. You have access to the large range of vehicles included coaches, cars, minibuses and minivans, so choose the transport as per your comfort and enjoy the luxurious journey at highly affordable prices.
Our taxis are fully maintained with deluxe facilities. Taxi are licensed and regularly services, so there are perfectly fine and safe to travel to the destination. At the airport terminal, our driver comes to "Meet and Greet " you. He will be holding the placard of your name in the hands for easy reference. A driver also helps you out with the transfer of baggage. We make sure that "meet and Greet" service is available for the customer on time and for that, we track the status of your flight on regular basis. If any delay occurs in the flight landing, we inform the driver, so that he can come to receive you on the exact timings. The service is free for the customers.
We offer the quality services to customers and make sure that their desires are getting fulfilled. We also take care of our customer's comfort, so we offer them a "Business Credit Account" facility. Use the account for payment which you can make in the intervals of a week, fortnight or month. So, you do not need to worry about payment of charges as you can pay them later. For payment, you can go for debit and credit card transfers. We also accept all the major bank transfers.
We make sure that customer is fully satisfied with the services, for analysing this we collect the feedback when the journey ends. If we find any inconvenience in our services, we work on that factor and make the taxi transfer perfect and reliable for the customers. So, share the feedback and help us to be the best.
For any other enquiry, call us any time on our telephone number, or send your query via email. Our experts will get back to you with all answers within a short span of time.
Hunstanton is a seaside town situated in Norfolk, England. This town is one of those places on the East coast where the sun can be seen setting on the sea. The town is a very beautiful place and one of the major tourist's attractions. The estimated distance between the Gatwick Airport and Hunstanton is approximately 155.7 Miles via M25 route and 180.1 Miles via the A12 route. The estimated time required to reach the destination is approximately 3 hours 3 minutes and 3 hours 43 minutes respectively.
Note - Timings conditions are only applicable if the weather is good and normal traffic flow on the road.
Have a wonderful journey with Jewels Airport Transfers.


POLICE. BY LlEUT.-COLONEL S. C. F. PEILE, Inspector-General of Police, Burma. MILITARY. HE outbreak of hostilities with the Kingdom of Ava, in 1885, and the consequent disturbances in Upper Burma, which it was feared would spread to the Lower Province, rendered an increase in the Lower Burma police force necessary. The abnormal prevalence of serious crime in British Burma (then Lower Burma) was no doubt due to the incom-petency of the Burma police, who, even when well armed and led, showed a lamentable want of courage and discipline. It was, therefore, resolved to increase the Indian portion of the force and recruit them from the fighting races of Upper India. The men so recruited, were, as a matter of fact, a poor class of men from Oudh and Upper Bengal, cow-keepers, sweetmeat-sellers, and such like, but then the local officers had no experience to guide them in the selection of recruits. When a rebellion broke out in Shwegyin in 1886, and spread through the Irrawaddy and Pegu divisions, reserves had to be formed, and 800 men and 56 officers of Indian police were recruited in India, and utilised for this purpose. The reserves were allotted to districts and varied according to requirements from thirty to one hundred men per district. At Rangoon a special reserve of 200 picked men was kept up to reinforce any district requiring assistance. The Indians recruited in India were of a much better stamp than those previously locally enlisted, whilst in several districts an auxiliary police force of Karens was also organised. These were formed into a local militia and did excellent service. By 1887 the military police (Indian police recruited in -India) had increased from 1,070 to 1,452. They were placed under an adjutant, a retired officer, Captain Delacheroix, were required to serve for three years, and were placed under the Military Police Act. Except in the Thayetmyo district, the aid of troops was not invoked in Lower Burma. The Upper Burma police were separate from those in Lower Burma, and Colonel Stedman, C.B., with the local rank of Brigadier-General, was entrusted with their organisation. He was assisted by a senior military officer, Major Graves, under the title of Deputy Inspector-General of Military Police ; this officeras functions being similar to those of a combined Adjutant-General and Quartermaster-General at Army Headquarters. The work of organisation had been begun as early as February, 1886, when the formation of four levies of 500 men each, with a proper complement of native officers and non-commissioned officers and 2,000 extra military police for district work was sanctioned. Later, a further body of 1,000	men were enlisted, and 1,000 volunteers taken from native regiments. Thus, at the beginning of 1887, the sanctioned strength of the military police force was 6,000, and the actual strength about 5,000. In January, j887, 5,000 more military police were sanctioned, and another 4,000 were being enrolled and partially trained in India. At the close of the year the sanctioned strength was I5,5AA- This was the force General Stedman was called upon to train and organise. The levies from India came equipped with rifles, accoutrements and uniform ; but prior to March, 1887, no arrangements had been made for their medical treatment, for their supply of rations, or for the renewal of clothing, ammunition, and c. Prior to the arrival of General Stedman, the principal medical officer of the forces was required to organise the medical arrangements, and Surgeon-Captain Davis, I.M.S., was entrusted with the details. At the same time Captain Peile, who had accompanied the field force REGIMENTAL AND GARRISON POLICE, RANGOON.REGIMENTAL AND GARRISON POLICE, RANGOON.


text:
Anthony Bryan
England paralympic athlete
At just age of 6, Anthony was diagnosed with a brain tumour which was shutting down my body. When he was being operated on to remove the tumour, he suffered a stroke losing the use of his left side. Anthony had to learn how to cope in life with this new disability, going from a very happy active child to wheelchair bound. This was absolutely devastating for me as a child.
Anthony began to hate life, hate himself, hate who he had become and began to wish he never survived the operation and thought it be better off not being around! This is not how a 6 year old child should be thinking.
But with strong perseverance and hard work, lots of ups and downs in life, 10 years later Anthony started to get back into sport again playing football and running around to the best he could. NEVER GIVE UP!
In 2015 Anthony was selected to represent England in the Para World Games in the 800m & 1500m and won Gold in both!
Anthony continuously pushes himself to achieve more & more to see how far he can go. He already hit rock bottom in life, so there was only one way to go and that was UP!
Most recently, Anthony has entered into many 10k running races throughout London. He was the only runner with a disability but this did not stop him and out of 8000 runners he finished in the top 1000!
Push yourself to your limits, find out what you are really made off! You will never know if you don't try!


text:
Q: Scikit: How to limit maximum values for prediction per sample
is it possible to limit the maximum value for predictions per sample when using scikit? In my input data there is a column("Announcement") which is the maximum value for this particular sample, "result" in this case is the true value. How can limit the prediction between 0 - $annoucement?
Here is a very small code snippet / example:
#!/usr/bin/env python3

from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split

def main():
    mylist = [
    {'Id':101,'Username':"john",'Date':1475359200,'Announcement':111,'Result':50},
    {'Id':104,'Username':"john",'Date':1475359905,'Announcement':40,'Result':23},
    {'Id':222,'Username':"dave",'Date':1475399212,'Announcement':600,'Result':420},
    {'Id':301,'Username':"john",'Date':1475559256,'Announcement':300,'Result':150},
    {'Id':407,'Username':"dave",'Date':1475659277,'Announcement':10,'Result':8}
    ]

    df = pd.DataFrame(mylist)
    df['Username'] =  pd.Series(pd.factorize(df['Username'])[0] + 1).astype('category')
    y = df['Result'].values
    df = df.drop('Result', axis=1)
    X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(df, y, random_state=2)
    clf = LinearRegression()
    clf.fit(X_train, y_train)
    predictions = clf.predict(X_test)
    print("predictions")
    print(predictions)
    print("true values")
    print(y_test)

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

output:
predictions
[ 255.81049569   52.35007969]
true values
[420   8]

The issue is in this case the second value.
thanks in advance

A: I'm not sure how to do this natively in Scikit-Learn, but you can set the predictions to be the value in the Announcement column if they are greater than this value with a list comprehension:
predictions = [p if p < a else a for p, a in zip(predictions, X_test['Announcement'])]

Result:
predictions
[255.81049569325114, 10]
true values
[420   8]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Should we abolish the FDA?
Great Debates
Shalmanese November 18, 2006, 9:18am #1
In this thread, we were talking about Milton Friedman and I claimed Friedman was a nutbag for wanting to abolish the FDA among other things. Opus1 challenged me to back up my statement and make a cogent argument about why the Friedman is wrong. Not wanting to hijack that thread, I've decided to start another one.
The original interview is here. The relevant portion is here (this should fall under fair use):
ROBINSON The Food and Drug Administration which regulates everything from the drugs that pharmaceutical companies may put on the market to the ingredients in items we purchase off the grocery store shelves. Let me give you an example- Thalidomide [FRIEDMAN Everybody's favorite example…] Well I may be leading with my chin on this one but I'm going to lead with it anyway. 50's and 60's it is marketed in Europe as a drug to help women get through the nausea that they sometimes experience during pregnancy. The Food and Drug Administration said it had been inadequately tested in the United States and forbade it to be marketed in this country with the result that thousands of children were born with horrible birth defects in Europe to mothers who had used Thalidomide but that didn't happen to American children, because the FDA had intervened and kept that drug off the market. Thank god for the FDA, right?
FRIEDMAN Wrong [ROBINSON Alright, why?] this is a case in which they did save lives, this was a good case, but suppose they are equally slow in adopting a drug which turns out to be very good and beneficial. How would you ever see the lives that are lost because of that? You're an FDA official, you have a question of whether to approve or disapprove a new drug. If you approve it and it turns out to be a bad drug like Thalidomide, you're in the soup, your name is going to be on every front page [ROBINSON cost me my job, I get hauled up to Congress to testify…] right. On the other hand if you disapprove it, but it turns out to be good, well then later on you approve it four or five years later, nobody's going to complain about the fact that you didn't approve it earlier except those greedy pharmaceutical companies that want make profits at the expense of the public, as everybody will say. So the result is that the pressure on the FDA is always to be late in approving. And there's enormous evidence that they have caused more deaths by late approvals than they have saved by early approval.
ROBINSON So your view is abolish the FDA…
FRIEDMAN Absolutely [ROBINSON And what comes up in its place?] what comes up? It's in the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies not to have these bad things. Do you think the manufacturer of Thalidomide made a profit out of Thalidomide or lost? [ROBINSON I see, ok.] And you have to have…people should be responsible for harm that they do. It should've been possible…[ROBINSON So tort law takes care of a lot of this.] Absolutely, absolutely…
ROBINSON Alright, if Lilly or Merck comes up with a drug that does me harm, I go after them, I join a class action with everybody else who's taken that pill and we sue them for billions of dollars and wipe out their share holders equity. Seeing that, they have every interest to be extremely rigorous in testing that drug before they make it available.
In my mind, I view Friedman as having a bad case of Man with a hammer syndrome. Like Einstein and BF Skinner, he simply refuses to entertain evidence that refutes his pet theory and conflicts with his world view.
Lets start with Opus1's main argument which is that the FDA has lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of people due to making bad decisions:
…in 1981…the FDA published a press release confessing to mass murder. That was not, of course, the way in which the release was worded; it was simply an announcement that the FDA had approved the use of timolol, a Beta-blocker, to prevent recurrences of heart attacks. At the time timolol was approved, Beta-blockers had been widely used outside the U.S. for over ten years. It was estimated that the use of timolol would save from seven thousand to ten thousand lives a year in the U.S. So the FDA, by forbidding the use of Beta-blockers before 1981, was responsible for something close to a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths.
How many lives has the FDA saved to make up for those hundreds of thousands of deaths, plus many, many more?
Well, my response to that is sure, of course they have. They wield a lot of power and, as a consequence, any mistake they make can have far reaching consequences. But everybody makes mistakes, all the time. You just have to live with that. The real question is would a free market approach cause the loss of more or less lives?
The fundamental assumption that Friedman is making is that the market will act in a rational manner because either all people are rational or the market contains some mystical voodoo that distills a rational decision from non-rational parts. However, what this completely fails to take into account is that human reasoning, especially on issues of risk, are grossly irrational on a huge and systematic basis. We overestimate small threats and underestimate big ones, overestimate gruesome looking threats, threats outside of our control and new threats. As a result, the "average person" is grossly unsuited to making judgements about the relative risks of drugs and whether the benifits outweigh the risks. Drug companies would be incredibly motivated to play on flaws of human judgement to maximise their return rather than do the most good for humanity. While the FDA isn't perfect in this regard, anybody who has had at least some training on performing risk analysis and cost benifit analysis is almost always going to do far better than the layman.
As a result, Friedman's tort based incentive program for keeping drug companies in line is ludicrious. Many of the currently benifical drugs would be sued off the market because of a few highly visible media stories and many harmful or useless drugs would flood the market based on similarly biased marketing. If you doubt this, look at the dietary supplement market which is NOT regulated by the FDA and see the results there.
Friedman seems to have fallen in love with the mathematical models and has simply refused to stick his head out into the world to see if they correlate properly and I think thats a very dangerous position to be in.
The_Octagon November 18, 2006, 10:09am #2
I'd consider seriously reconstructing it over simply abolishing it and hoping everything turns out all right. I agree there is a overly lengthy period, much like the patent office, between submission and the approval/denial decision. Throwing out what-ifs like the timolol question is quite obviously pointless, and a bit propagandist. Pointing out the flaws is helpful, but likening them to mass murder is pushing it.
Pardon my ignorance, but don't European countries have the FDA to some degree?
cckerberos November 18, 2006, 10:29am #3
I wouldn't abolish the FDA, but I would gut their regulatory power to make it so that pharmaceuticals could still be sold without their approval. Yes, this could have harmful effects to society, but just as with recreational drugs, I think people have a right to do with their own body as they wish.
Shalmanese November 18, 2006, 5:33pm #4
cckerberos:
I think this would in effect abolish it. FDA approval is horrendously expensive to go through. If the FDA standard was made voluantary, drug companies would work as hard as they could to downplay the importance of it and promote their own "independant" scientific studies which would be not at all scientifically valid but much cheaper to run. It would be almost impossible to try and educate the population on the benifits of completely randomised, double blind clinical studies vs any other sort of study and why the billions of dollars spent doing them is worth it. What would end up happening is the drug market becomes exactly like the dietary supplement market where the standards of proof are incredibly lax. The number of people who would demand a higher standard is simply not large enough to matter.
The whole "right to do what they want with their own bodies" argument is a perculiarly American strain of liberty. In almost everywheve else in the world, and I think even in America, the general sentiment is that the government has some right to protect us against systematic stupidity against ourselves. We should regulate against nigerian scammers, people who sell deadly "herbal" remedies, unsafe architects and the like.
Loopydude November 18, 2006, 5:56pm #5
Given the unquestioning (and hence hugely lucrative) approval consumers give to so-called supplements, which are almost universally lacking in efficacy, at best, I'd say abolishing the FDA would be nothing short of a catastrophe. Just imagine what would happen when people start popping pills that actually do something. It's difficult enough as it is to keep thousands from accidentally killing themselves with OTC analgesics every year, yet this mythical rational consumer I keep hearing about will then be entrusted to make informed judgements about, say, antibiotics and antiretrovirals? Chemotherapeutics? Opiate painkillers? It's laughable on the face of it. Friedman demonstrated with one statement that he knows (or perhaps even cares to know) precisely zero about the realities of public health policy, or even the basics of human psychology when it comes to self-medication. The average patient is woefully uninformed about their own health and biology, and rational self-interest appears to be virtually absent among the great majority of the teeming millions, as evidenced in their burgeoning waistlines alone.
The FDA is a manifestly flawed contraption, and the baby indeed must swim at times in a sewer of bathwater. Improvement is always warrented. But abolishment? Ridiculous.
BrainGlutton November 18, 2006, 6:01pm #6
Loopydude:
Given the unquestioning (and hence hugely lucrative) approval consumers give to so-called supplements, which are almost universally lacking in efficacy, at best, I'd say abolishing the FDA would be nothing short of a catastrophe. Just imagine what would happen when people start popping pills that actually do something.
You are ignoring the salubrious effects on the quality of the gene pool.
ITR_champion November 18, 2006, 6:26pm #7
Those who have lived under the benevolent guidance of the FDA all their lives, it's tough to imagine how anarchic the drug business was back at the start of the 20th century. In short, there was no such thing as a laboratory testing process until governments here and elsewhere stepped in and started implementing standards. Before the FDA, there was no shortage of classic stories, such as treatments for alcoholism that were mostly alcohol. However, the damage was relatively limited because the overall number of drugs taken was still fairly small. We have become a much more heavily drugged society over the last hundred years, and the consequences of having untested drugs on the market would be much more severe today than back then.
Opus1 November 18, 2006, 7:03pm #8
So no one has any stats on how many lives the FDA has saved? But we all just somehow know it would be a disaster to let people decide for themselves what drugs to put in their own bodies?
I'll also present a freedom based argument. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the FDA does indeed save more lives than it costs. But those lives belong to different people. There are certainly some consumers who are rational, do research on the drugs they are taking, and weigh risks and benefits accordingly. Suppose consumer X hears about a new drug that might save his life, but hasn't been tested thoroughly yet. He decides the risk is worth it. But unfortunately, the FDA actively prohibits him from getting his hands on this drug. The FDA's policy of not permitting the sale of untested drugs exists in order to save the lives of people may be benevolent, but is it moral to deny X a lifesaving treatment in order to prevent Y from doing something stupid to himself? This strikes me as even worse than a doctor who kills a healthy patient to harvest his organs to save five sick ones. The doctor has killed one to save others from something that isn't their fault, but the FDA may be killing one to prevent others from killing themselves.
Final point, which always comes up in libertarian debates. Who here admits to being one of the great unwashed, who would put into his/her body anything on a drug store shelf that claims to cure what ails you? My guess is no one. It's always someone else who'll act stupid unless government protects them. I think people greatly underestimate the self-interest people have.
RickJay November 18, 2006, 7:19pm #9
Shalmanese:
The fundamental assumption that Friedman is making is that the market will act in a rational manner because either all people are rational or the market contains some mystical voodoo that distills a rational decision from non-rational parts. However, what this completely fails to take into account is that human reasoning, especially on issues of risk, are grossly irrational on a huge and systematic basis. We overestimate small threats and underestimate big ones, overestimate gruesome looking threats…
All this is true, but none of it adds up to an argument for having the FDA.
The fact that people are irrational at times simply does not constitute evidence that the FDA has provided a net benefit to American society. Friedman's argument is being presented simplistically, and I'm sure if he were alive and we asked him he'd admit people can be suckers.
But, look, the FDA costs a LOT of money, and represents a minor imposition on the freedom of Americans. For all that cost, surely it's reasonable to expect that someone can provide an argument **based on objective evidence ** that the FDA's net effect has been a positive one?
If the FDA standard was made voluantary, drug companies would work as hard as they could to downplay the importance of it and promote their own "independant" scientific studies which would be not at all scientifically valid but much cheaper to run.
And yet, industry often self-regulates with great efficiency. Look at the back of your monitor, right now; there's likely a UL or CSA symbol there, right? That's the certification that your monitor is tested (or, in most cases, that the way it is made and the prototypes thereof were tested) to ensure it won't set your house on fire or electrocute you. That standard was completely voluntary to submit to, as are most such product standards; almost everything in your house with a UL or CSA label was so tested just out of the manufacturer's sense of self-preservation. The general public hasn't a damned clue about product certification, product testing, standards writing, or any of that… and yet that system works, and it works very well. It's saved thousand upon thousands of lives.
Granted, drugs aren't the same kind of product, but this out-of-hand dismissal of the idea of getting rid of the FDA is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. I'm not coming down hard on one side or the other because I haven't studied it, but I can imagine the ungodly, expensive mess product certification would be if the government stuck its nose into it, and it's reasonable to at least **think ** about the possibility that the FDA is similarly a mess.
Squink November 18, 2006, 7:20pm #10
I look forward to marketing 2,4 dinitrophenol as a diet aid.
It works, it really works!
Opus1 November 18, 2006, 7:25pm #11
Squink:
And I look forward to a continuing stream of snarky one line responses that fail to respond to my arguments.
ITR_champion November 18, 2006, 7:34pm #12
Opus1:
I, for one, will readily admit that my drug-buying procedure is to find the cheapest item in the store that claims to alleviate my symptoms. I do not do any research into the drugs I use. I do not have the slightest interest in hunting down nd reading dozens of scientific papers in order to determine whether cherry-flavored Nyquil is actually safe and effective. I much prefer that the government verify it for me.
Cool! Wanna buy some Badger milk? It'll help your industry 'self regulate'.[sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*[/sup]Actually Badger milk, unlike 2,4 dinitrophenol, does not work. You may as well buy snake oil.
BrainGlutton November 18, 2006, 7:40pm #14
I'll also present a freedom based argument.
Never mind hypothetical arguments, let's have some reality-based scenarios. Are there any industrialized (or otherwise comparable to the U.S. in terms of pervasiveness, availability and importance of drugs) countries which have no equivalent to the FDA? And if so, what have been the practical effects of that lack on public health?
BrainGlutton:
My argument is not "hypothetical." It is based on reality–certain people can't take drugs that might save their lives due to the FDA. Even if you deny that this is the situation, I fail to see what makes you think you can dodge a legitimate argument just by labeling it hypothetical. We don't need an actual doctor killing a person for his organs to have a spirited debate on whether such a practice is ethical.
As to your question, I doubt it, but I'm not sure. I also doubt that there's a single industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have tariffs either, which hardly proves that they're a good idea.
RickJay:
Many of see a special need for regulation of drugs, and this example will make it clear why. With monitors, it's easy to see whether the thing works or not. If my monitor explodes, I'm going to be on the phone to Dell demanding a refund in about twenty seconds. Dell knows this, and thus has a motivation to only sell working monitors. Since their engineers can presumably fix the problem easily, self-regulation will work in that case.
Drugs are different. Let's say a pharmaceutical company sinks $50,000,000 into developing a new chemical compound to fight cholesterol, which we'll call Wioxx. Testing begins, and soon the testers are back with some bad news. Wioxx causes heart attacks in a small but non-trivial percentage of users. Now what does the company do?
From a financial perspecitve, the choice is clear. Sell the drug and you'll make a lot of money. If the number of Wioxx-induced heart attacks is small, it probably won't ever be noticed because it won't stand out from random noise in the heart attack statistics. On the other hand, you probably can't fix the problem with a minor change to Wioxx. If you don't sell the drug, then your entire $50,000,000 goes down the drain.
In such a case, the profit motive would drive the company to bury the bad news about Wioxx and sell it anyway. The only way to solve the problem is to have an outside regulatory agency that isn't concerned with profits.
I also doubt that there's a single industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have tariffs either, which hardly proves that they're a good idea.
Yes, there is. Iraq. An example that goes a long way towards proving they're a good idea.
Sam_Stone November 18, 2006, 8:51pm #18
I can give you lots of arguments for banning the FDA. Let's list them:
Absent the FDA, the market will develop alternatives
Rickjay Mentioned UL - Underwriter's laboratories is an arm of the insurance industry. Insurers are one of the larger regulatory bodies in a free market. I can easily see, for example, a drug testing agency set up by a consortium of malpractice insurers, which demands that doctors who want malpractice insurance may only prescribe UL-Approved drugs.
How is this different than government regulation? Because it maintains a better balance between risk and reward. And it retains choice - doctors are free to opt out of the system, people are free to make their own choices.
Drugs are introduced more gradually, controlling risk
In the current system, FDA approval is a doctor's 'get out of a jail free' card. If the FDA says it's good, you're free to prescribe it without risk to your practice. As a result, when a drug obtains FDA approval, it becomes widely used overnight by millions of people. So if the FDA screws up (and they have), the effects can be far reaching.
Without the FDA, doctors would have to be more cautious. Different people have different levels of risk aversion. The new diet drug would first only be prescribed to people who are at the highest risk of dying from obesity, because the drug risk is overshadowed by the other health risk. If drugs enter the market slowly (by 'early adopters'), we have a real-world drug trial going on that can be stopped before the drug is taken by millions. Almost every other industry has this phenomenon - high-risk activities or extremely expensive activities are undertaken by early adopters who have great incentive to use it, and they help refine the product and shake out the bugs and expose hidden risks before the general public sees it.
The FDA, being a political agency, responds to political pressure
That means its not immune to adjusting its standards and procedures based on pressure from politicians, rather than the needs of science or the needs of patients. If you're a liberal, wouldn't you be worried that a Bush-appointed FDA head might manipulate the agency to delay introduction, of say, a drug developed from embryonic stem cells? In the past, 'activist' FDA heads have attempted to push the agency into regulating all sorts of politically incorrect things, such as second-hand smoke. Let's not put our medicine in the hands of partisan politicians from either side of the aisle.
The FDA is not your doctor. It can not respond to personal requirements.
For example, the FDA will not approve a cancer drug until it can be shown to have minimal risks to the widespread population of people who might take it. It has to be less risky than alternative medicines and procedures that are available to the average patient who might take the drug. But what if you're 100% terminal with a cancer that will kill you in weeks? Isn't your condition special? Wouldn't you be willing to take a drug that has, say, a 20% chance of making you blind, or that could possible kill you, but just might cure your cancer?
Your personal physician can look at your case and weigh those risks. The FDA can't.
This happened years ago with drugs for HIV and AIDS. Eventually, the FDA had to modify its own policy to expedite the approval of HIV drugs, because so many people were dying waiting for the laborious standard approval process to run its course. And as I recall, the government even legally allowed AIDS patients to do a complete end-run around the system and import unapproved drugs for their personal use. AIDS got this exemption because it was a very politically-correct disease that had huge political pressure behind it, forcing the government's hand. Too bad people with prostate cancer don't have the same option. Sucks to be them.
The FDA approval process drives up the price of drugs
Big time. A patent on a drug lasts for 17 years. A drug has to be patented before it enters the expensive and publically visible trial process. The FDA approval process can take more than a decade, and cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. And when the drug is finally approved, the company has maybe five, six, or seven years to make back its R&D costs, plus the cost of the FDA trials, plus profit, before the patent expires and generic drugs flood the market and drive down the price.
The result of this is that new drugs are horribly expensive, putting them outside the reach of the poor and uninsured. So the rich get the new drugs and the poor suffer for years until generics become available.
Another effect of this is that manufacturers have to target their R&D at drugs that have mass appeal. If you've got a rare disease that only a few hundred or a few thousand people have, well, you're just out of luck. No one's going to go through a 12 year drug trial to make a drug they can sell to 500 people.
A third effect is that it can be almost impossible for new drug startups to enter the market. The regulatory process is so heavyweight that new companies can't break in. So a handful of drug giants like Merck and Pfizer own a huge chunk of the market. How much innovation are we losing as a result of this?
The FDA approval process undervalues the risk of delayed entry of drugs to needy patients
The AIDS example above illustrates the cost of keeping drugs away from people when they really need them. A classic example is beta blockers - they save many, many lives by preventing recurring heart attacks in people with heart problems. They become available in Great Britain years before they were available in the U.S., because the FDA, fresh from its PR triumph over Thalidomide, was being ultra-cautious.
Here's an interesting article (google cached version - can't find the current one): Death by Regulation - The Price We Pay for the FDA
The sedative thalidomide, for example, was marketed in Europe for several years while awaiting FDA approval. In the early 1960's, the sensitivity of an unborn child to the deforming effects of drugs was not widely appreciated, so doctors began prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women. Consequently, approximately 12,000 European children were born with deformed limbs. Few American babies were affected because only a few test samples had been distributed in this country. The FDA physician who had delayed its approval was given a Presidential Award.
Paying With Our Lives
Encouraged by this feedback, the FDA began to require even more studies. Testing and approval took even longer, especially when compared with countries like Great Britain where there were no immediate changes in the way new drugs were processed. While the British continued to enjoy many new drugs to treat their illnesses, only half of these were available to Americans, and only after many more years of waiting. One of these new drugs denied to Americans was propranolol, the first Beta-blocker to be used extensively to treat angina and hypertension.
Approximately 10,000 Americans died needlessly every year for the three years it was against the law for their doctors to treat them with propranolol. Propranolol was finally approved in the US for minor uses in 1968, but was only approved in 1973 and 1976 for angina and hyper-tension respectively. **The regulatory delay of this single drug may have been responsible for the death of more Americans than all other deaths from drugs in this century.**
Ugh. I hate to get off topic again, but I don't even know where to begin on this one. Economists have known that tariffs are a bad idea for two centuries. They exist largely because they benefit small, discrete groups with large political power at the cost of large, diffuse groups without such power. The fact that you can even argue for tariffs with a straight face given all the harm they've done to mankind for centuries undermines pretty much any credibility you might have on economic matters. Do you also think that machines and immigrants cost jobs?
Anyway, I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence that the FDA has saved more lives than it has cost. Sam Stone has provided yet more evidence showing the opposite.
ITR champion:
If you do sell the drug, you face millions of dollars in lawsuits. You seem to implicitly refute this premise by claiming that the heart attacks from this drug won't be noticed in the general population. So, how were they noticed in the clinical testing?
Assuming a functioning legal system (a big if) in which consumers are permitted to recover damages for injuries from defective drugs, companies actually have the exact correct motivation. If they don't sell a potentially useful drug, they lose profits. If they sell a potentially harmful drug, they risk lawsuits. As such, they are constantly searching for the "sweet spot" of testing. Too little --> lawsuits and lost $; too much --> lost profits.
Contrast the FDA. The FDA gets hit hard in the press, by congresspeople, and by the public at large if it approves a drug prematurely that later turns out to be dangerous. But what is consequence for taking too long to approve a drug? As has been demonstrated several times already in this thread, FDA delays in drug approval have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and yet no one is calling for the FDA members to be indicted for crimes against humanity. The FDA has asymmetrical motivation, and as such will constantly error on the side of delays, denials, and further testing.


text:
Home / Finance & Market / Is Pakistan losing Afghan market?
Is Pakistan losing Afghan market?
Amanullah Bashar March 22, 2018	Finance & Market 23 Views
Published on 11th Aug, Edition 32, 2014
Cement export to Afghanistan declined by 58 percent
Despite earnest support to Afghan economy besides offering tariff free transit trade, the export of different commodities required for infrastructure development are on the decline to such an extent that the export of cement, the basic need for development, has declined by 58 percent to Afghanistan. Although the reasons for declining exports are being attributed to the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan in 2014 as they must be preparing to leave yet it seems a matter of concern that even after NATO forces departure the development process has to be continued for the much needed development in Afghanistan.
Besides the declining trend in cement exports, the cement industry also feeling the pinch of what they called the unfriendly policies towards cement industry, which also affecting the dispatch to the domestic market.
The cement industry as well as other industries allied to construction industry, however, need to have a little patience as Pakistan is well poised for a massive development especially in the infrastructure and property development with the turnaround of the national economy which seems quite on the corner.
The industry circles, however, feel that after posting healthy dispatches of three million tons plus in previous four months, the new fiscal year started on a sour note for the cement sector as it struggled to stay afloat amid political uncertainty, unkind government policies in domestic markets and lowering demand in its export markets.
Cement dispatches to domestic markets during the month of July 2014 were 1.73 million tons compared with 1.85 million tons during same month last year showing a decline of 6.52 percent. Exports during July 2014 were 503,000 tons against 749,000 tons during July 2013 showing reduction of 32.89 percent. Total dispatches during July 2014 were only 2.23 million tons compared to 2.6 million tons during same month last year showing a decline of 14.12 percent.
The worse export performance was mainly attributed to reduction in quantities to Afghanistan where against exports of 441,812 tons in July last year, the exports reduced to 183,927 tons in July this year. According to industry experts, this trend is likely to continue in coming months as NATO forces prepare to leave Afghanistan.
The massive decline of over 58 percent of exports to Afghanistan according to industry experts also indicate declining competitiveness of the commodity in the global market where other regional players like Iran are making business inroads. The duty on imported coal has further put pressure on cost of business after massive hikes in power and energy tariffs, the industry circle added.
The cement plants located in south showed better performance in exports as the exports from south mainly through sea suffered a loss of only 7.2 percent while the exports from north declined by massive 43.8 percent. However, in the domestic market, the decline in cement uptake from north was restricted to 5.9 percent against a decline of 9.1 percent in the south. This according to experts depicts slow down in construction activities partly due to monsoon and partly to uncertain political climate.
A spokesman of All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) pointed out that the issues impacting cement sector have still not been addressed by the government. In federal budget 2013-14, cement was brought within the purview of 'Third Schedule' of Sales Tax Act 1990 that increased the overall tax burden and resulted in increase in the local prices. Considering the cement dynamics, industry on numerous instances has approached the government to reconsider its decision and remove cement from Third Schedule and to bring it in the normal sales tax regime. This will help industry to reduce prices, which will help to accelerate construction activities across the country. He said in view of large displacement of citizens from terror prone areas there would be greater need for cement in these remote areas when rehabilitation process starts. He said placement of cement in Third Schedule of Sales Tax Act is an impediment in supply of cement to these areas at reasonable rates. He appealed the government to act in time to ensure availability of this essential commodity to the displaced persons at cheaper rates by taking cement out of Third Schedule.
Recent federal budget 2014-15 has added to the worries of cement industry as government has imposed 1 percent duty on imported coal. The spokesman of APCMA stressed that coal is the only fuel on which import duty has been imposed in the recent budget, which is a direct injustice to the cement industry as cement industry is the main user of imported coal and consumes almost 95 percent of the 4.5 million tons annual imports. Due to unavailability of gas, other industries have switched to coal and many others are also converting to coal, so this custom duty is to nullify the positive initiative of the government to use coal as an alternate energy source. The spokesperson of APCMA further pointed out that cement industry has spent millions of dollars in converting its plants from the expensive furnace oil to coal in order to reduce the cost of production. Our product will become uncompetitive in the global markets and as a result, the precious dollar 500 million foreign exchange being earned on cement exports will be at risk. He further added that the cement sector of the country is already facing grave issues including massive load-shedding, shortage of labor, slowdown of construction activities, less exports etc etc; therefore, this duty is just to add to the woes of the sector.
Budget 2014-15 has also increased the excise duty on cement and the impact is around Rs2.5 per bag, said the spokesman of cement industry. He added that electricity rates have already been increased to historic high level and considering the continuous increase in input costs coupled with the recent imposition of custom duty on coal, continued restriction on the trucks to load cement and coal according to the approved axle weight etc etc; would leave manufacturers with no choice but to pass on these costs to the consumer.
Tags cement export market
Previous Born of heavy industries in Pakistan – lack of capital a major obstacle
Next Monetary Policy: likely impact on inflation and interest rate
The rupee is presently being traded at around Rs104 to a dollar in the …