Off Beat: Terms not disclosed

Posted on by

June 16, 2012 11:24:12 PM

The days of railing against "taxpayer-supported schools" are over. And so, it appears, are the days of Freedom Newspapers, later known as Freedom Communications.

The final shoe dropped last Monday with announcement of the sale of the final chunk of the media empire cobbled together by Raymond Cyrus Hoiles.

Fittingly, there was no government bailout for Freedom. Banks, repositories of dollars, got the government largesse. Newspapers, repositories of ideas, were left to fend for themselves.

There was no Newspaper Preservation Act this time around to save "failing" newspapers.

It was sink or swim. A devil's brew of family feuding, an economic collapse and the quickening shift of reading habits from print to digital proved too powerful for Freedom to overcome.

As for Hoiles, who died in 1970, his newspapers were the Santa Ana Register (now Orange County Register) and everything else, including this one.

Back in the early part of the 20th century, Hoiles could see the future in mostly small markets, where his newspapers could grow along with the population of readers, most of whom went through those "taxpayer-supported schools."

The newspapers' guiding philosophy was a simple one: Libertarianism. He was a tea party guy before there was the tea party.

Five years ago, long after Hoiles' death, he was still being extolled, in a way, on the Reason.com website, where Libertarian ideas live on.

Read the original:

Off Beat: Terms not disclosed

Falkland Islands lifted by economy

Posted on by

Thirty years after Britain liberated the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation, the islanders are keen not to solely be defined by the events of 1982.

On the anniversary of the end of the war, Falklanders stood side by side with the veterans who fought for their freedom and said they wanted to show the loss of 255 British servicemen and three Falklanders were not in vain.

During last week's visit to the islands Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne was shown parts of the island's successful fishing and farming industries, their improved education system and witnessed their passion for self-determination.

But it is the prospect of local oil and gas industries that is potentially the most significant and kicking up a storm in the South Atlantic.

It is one of the reasons Britain believes Argentina has been ratcheting up the rhetoric over the territory it calls Las Malvinas and has been trying to implement an economic blockade on the isolated islands.

Argentina's president Cristina de Kirchner took her country's claim to the Falkland Islands to the United Nations on the 30th anniversary of Britain's ousting of an Argentinian invasion force from the Falklands.

However, Prime Minister David Cameron sent a clear message there would be "no negotiation" on the Falklands and warned that Britain would defend the territory by force again if necessary.

The legacy of the Falklands conflict has been political freedom and physical security, but it is the hard work and ingenuity of the islands people and their fishing industry that has provided an economic boom and prosperity.

The Falklands' economy is "booming with significant government surplus", Governor Nigel Haywood said during his state of the nation annual speech to the Legislative Assembly in May.

This was based on an excellent year for the fishing industry, higher prices for wool and meat plus the Tourism Strategy, aimed at increasing the number of tourists and transforming the industry. But it is the discovery of potentially lucrative oil and gas reserves around the Falklands that could radically transform the country's economy. It would also mean the islands are well-placed to economically withstand pressure placed on them by the G20 country.

Continued here:

Falkland Islands lifted by economy

4 presumed dead after avalanche on Mount McKinley

Posted on by

WASHINGTONCongressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.

Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.

Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.

Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.

Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.

"We're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies," Obama said this spring at the annual meeting of The Associated Press. He expressed confidence the court would uphold the law, and neither he nor his aides have said what fallback plans are under discussion. "We will be prepared in any eventuality," White House aide David Plouffe said Sunday on ABC's "This

Among Republicans, aides to Speaker John Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other key lawmakers have convened a series of meetings in recent weeks to plan a post-ruling strategy.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected within the next two weeks on a challenge to the law, which has drawn fierce opposition among most Republicans for its requirement that most individuals carry health insurance.

While three big insurance companies announced plans this past week to retain certain protections for an estimated 40 percent of all individuals who receive their coverage through work, there has been no advance word from the drug industry on how prescription costs for older people might be affected by a finding that the law is unconstitutional.

Even so, Republicans say they have no plans for assuring continuity of a provision that reduces out-of-pocket costs for seniors with high drug expenses. This coverage gap is known as "doughnut hole."

View original post here:

4 presumed dead after avalanche on Mount McKinley

Health care reform uncertainty has safety-net providers in limbo

Posted on by

Richmond, Va. --

The issues being decided in the monumental U.S. Supreme Court review of health care reform hit home for John Rayfield. When the uninsured 64-year-old self-employed carpenter needed heart bypass surgery in December 2010, he had no way to pay for it.

Rayfield, who described himself as a "walking time bomb," was able to have life-saving surgery when Access Now, a privately run program that arranges for low-income, uninsured people to get care from specialists, found a doctor and hospital to take his case and donate their time and costs.

The court's decision could be a game changer for such organizations as Access Now, and the local free clinics, community health centers and private providers that make up a health care safety net, providing health care to patients who otherwise might go without.

"If all the Obamacare goes through and everything's constitutional, and we go ahead, probably 50 to 60 percent of our patients are going to qualify for Medicaid," said Connie Moslow, executive director of the Free Clinic of Powhatan.

"Now, does that mean they are going to take it? It puts the free clinics in kind of a precarious situation also, because our thing is we provide health care to the uninsured," she said. "How do we adjust?"

Soon, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on two controversial provisions of the 2010 health care reform law: Can people be required to buy health insurance, and what the expansion of Medicaid will look like.

The individual mandate of health care reform would require most people to maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage starting in 2014. There would be federal subsidies and tax credits to help people afford the costs.

Critical to the individual mandate is the creation of health benefit exchanges, state-managed marketplaces where people could shop for affordable health plans without the risk of being turned down because they have medical problems such as heart disease or cancer.

Also, under health care reform, state-run Medicaid programs would have to expand coverage to nearly all people under age 65 with household incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level beginning in January 2014. For a family of one, that's an annual household income of $14,856 in 2012.

More:

Health care reform uncertainty has safety-net providers in limbo

Health care's big four issues: What the justices are tackling

Posted on by

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial health care law passed in 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court in coming days will issue perhaps as many as four separate opinions on the constitutionality of the health care law.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) was signed into law March 23, 2010, passed by a Democratic congressional majority and championed by President Barack Obama. It has about 2,700 pages and contains 450 some provisions.

Here are the four issues the high court tackled separately during oral arguments in late March. Those issues are expected to play key roles in the judges' final decisions.

The gateway issue: Anti-Injunction Act

Would those challenging the law be barred from making any legal or constitutional claims until the key provision -- the individual mandate -- goes into effect in 2014? The obscure Anti-Injunction Act, dating back 145 years, prevents asking for a refund on a tax until that tax has been collected and paid. Judges in two federal appeals courts have made that "threshold" argument, which would effectively stop the current legal fight in its tracks.

Citing that law might give the court-- particularly its conservative members -- a way out of deciding the explosive issue in an election year. The majority could decide that the political branches can best resolve the conflicts, at least for now, or that the matter can be handled after the November elections. It could potentially delay a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate for at least four years.

The key Issue: Individual mandate

This provision would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face financial penalties. May the federal government, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, regulate economic "inactivity?" Three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it "breathtaking in its expansive scope." That "circuit split" all but assured the Supreme Court would step in to decide the matter.

View post:

Health care's big four issues: What the justices are tackling

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

Posted on by

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial health care law passed in 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court is set to release within a few days its much-anticipated rulings on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the comprehensive health care law enacted two years ago.

The election-year rulings will not only guide how every American receives medical care but will also establish precedent-setting boundaries for how government regulation can affect a range of social areas. Your health and your finances could be on the line.

The outcome's possibilities are myriad: a narrow or sweeping decision? A road map to congressional authority in coming decades? Which bloc of justices, which legal argument will win the day?

Here are five scenarios -- strategic markers of a sort -- to watch as the high court weighs in on health care.

Wait another day?

The first question the high court tackled in its seven-hour marathon argument in March was something few observers had expected: It boiled down to whether the law's individual mandate is a "tax" that could prevent the court from considering the broader constitutional questions.

A little-known federal law -- the Anti-Injunction Act, dating back to 1867-- bars claimants from asking for a refund on a tax until it has been paid.

This "gateway" issue could render moot all the other pending health care questions if the justices think the minimum coverage requirement amounts to a tax.

View original post here:

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

Health care's big four issues

Posted on by

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial health care law passed in 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court in coming days will issue perhaps as many as four separate opinions on the constitutionality of the health care law.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) was signed into law March 23, 2010, passed by a Democratic congressional majority and championed by President Barack Obama. It has about 2,700 pages and contains 450 some provisions.

Here are the four issues the high court tackled separately during oral arguments in late March. Those issues are expected to play key roles in the judges' final decisions.

The gateway issue: Anti-Injunction Act

Would those challenging the law be barred from making any legal or constitutional claims until the key provision -- the individual mandate -- goes into effect in 2014? The obscure Anti-Injunction Act, dating back 145 years, prevents asking for a refund on a tax until that tax has been collected and paid. Judges in two federal appeals courts have made that "threshold" argument, which would effectively stop the current legal fight in its tracks.

Citing that law might give the court-- particularly its conservative members -- a way out of deciding the explosive issue in an election year. The majority could decide that the political branches can best resolve the conflicts, at least for now, or that the matter can be handled after the November elections. It could potentially delay a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate for at least four years.

The key Issue: Individual mandate

This provision would require nearly all Americans to buy some form of health insurance beginning in 2014 or face financial penalties. May the federal government, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, regulate economic "inactivity?" Three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it "breathtaking in its expansive scope." That "circuit split" all but assured the Supreme Court would step in to decide the matter.

See the article here:

Health care's big four issues

Looming health care ruling will be among Supreme Court's most important

Posted on by

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Winners and losers are the natural consequence of the American legal system. In the Supreme Court, five majority votes among the nine members are enough to fundamentally change lives and legacies.

The high court in coming days will issue rulings in perhaps its most important appeal in a dozen years: whether the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama will be tossed out as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.

The stakes cannot be overstated -- what the justices decide on a quartet of separate questions will have immediate and long-term impact on every American, not only in the field of medicine but in vast, untold areas of "commerce." Health care expenditures alone currently make up 18% of the U.S. economy, and the new law promises to significantly expand that share.

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

"I think the justices probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney. "The oral arguments [in March] might have changed their minds around the margin. But we won't find out until the end of June."

A century of federal efforts to offer universal health care culminated in the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After months of bare-knuckled fights over politics and policy, the legislation signed by Obama reached 2,700 pages, nine major sections and 450-some provisions.

At issue is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. Twenty-six states in opposition say if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go. The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed traditional hot-button topics: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy. The high court now has the final word.

The court will not say precisely when the health care opinions will be released, but the last scheduled public session of the term is set for June 25. Depending on how long it takes the justices to finish up, that deadline could easily slip a few days.

The justices have already secretly voted on the health care cases, as well as a dozen or so other separate appeals. They met privately as a group just days after the late March arguments, voting preliminarily. Individual justices were assigned to write the one or more opinions, as well as separate dissents. Only they and their law clerks know how this will end.

See original here:

Looming health care ruling will be among Supreme Court's most important

GOP on health care: Repeal quickly, replace slowly

Posted on by

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.

Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.

Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.

Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.

Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.

"We're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies," Obama said this spring at the annual meeting of The Associated Press. He expressed confidence the court would uphold the law, and neither he nor his aides have said what fallback plans are under discussion. "We will be prepared in any eventuality," White House aide David Plouffe said Sunday on ABC's "This Week," although he declined to elaborate.

Among Republicans, aides to Speaker John Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other key lawmakers have convened a series of meetings in recent weeks to plan a post-ruling strategy.

A Supreme Court ruling is expected within the next two weeks on a challenge to the law, which has drawn fierce opposition among most Republicans for its requirement that most individuals carry health insurance.

While three big insurance companies announced plans this past week to retain certain protections for an estimated 40 percent of all individuals who receive their coverage through work, there has been no advance word from the drug industry on how prescription costs for older people might be affected by a finding that the law is unconstitutional.

Even so, Republicans say they have no plans for assuring continuity of a provision that reduces out-of-pocket costs for seniors with high drug expenses. This coverage gap is known as "doughnut hole."

Read the original here:

GOP on health care: Repeal quickly, replace slowly

Health care decision looms over Supreme Court

Posted on by

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Winners and losers are the natural consequence of the American legal system. In the Supreme Court, five majority votes among the nine members are enough to fundamentally change lives and legacies.

The high court in coming days will issue rulings in perhaps its most important appeal in a dozen years: whether the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama will be tossed out as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.

The stakes cannot be overstated -- what the justices decide on a quartet of separate questions will have immediate and long-term impact on every American, not only in the field of medicine but in vast, untold areas of "commerce." Health care expenditures alone currently make up 18% of the U.S. economy, and the new law promises to significantly expand that share.

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

"I think the justices probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney. "The oral arguments [in March] might have changed their minds around the margin. But we won't find out until the end of June."

A century of federal efforts to offer universal health care culminated in the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After months of bare-knuckled fights over politics and policy, the legislation signed by Obama reached 2,700 pages, nine major sections and 450-some provisions.

At issue is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. Twenty-six states in opposition say if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go. The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed traditional hot-button topics: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy. The high court now has the final word.

The court will not say precisely when the health care opinions will be released, but the last scheduled public session of the term is set for June 25. Depending on how long it takes the justices to finish up, that deadline could easily slip a few days.

The justices have already secretly voted on the health care cases, as well as a dozen or so other separate appeals. They met privately as a group just days after the late March arguments, voting preliminarily. Individual justices were assigned to write the one or more opinions, as well as separate dissents. Only they and their law clerks know how this will end.

Read this article:

Health care decision looms over Supreme Court

GMO showdown

Posted on by

Published: Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 9:17 a.m. Last Modified: Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.

The issue has farmers, grocers, scientists and foodies taking up sides, including some in Sonoma County whose livelihoods depend on agriculture setting up a fall election campaign that promises to be expensive, emotional and full of hyperbole about food safety.

Proponents of labeling, including organic farmers and food producers, say it is simply consumers' right to know what is in their food. They say labels aren't a negative, only educational, and that they may encourage shoppers to seek out more information about their eating habits.

Opponents, including traditional farmers, biotech firms and some scientists, say labeling wrongly implies that genetically engineered food is unsafe. They say labeling is misleading, expensive and will encourage costly, frivolous lawsuits.

If the initiative passes, California would be the first state to require labeling of such a wide range of foods containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

"Hallelujah!" Jil Hales, owner of Healdsburg's Barndiva restaurant, said of the initiative, which qualified for the ballot last week. "I wholeheartedly support labeling, with every fiber of my being as a person and businessperson."

The state Farm Bureau has come out against the measure, but the Sonoma County Farm Bureau is taking a wait-and-see approach.

"This measure is deceptive and poorly written," said Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer and a vice president of the California Farm Bureau.

The proposal would require by 2014 that most processed foods disclose to shoppers that they contain ingredients derived from plants whose DNA was altered with genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria.

It would require raw agricultural commodities produced entirely or in part through genetic engineering be labeled with the words "Genetically Engineered" on the front package or label. Processed foods produced in part through genetic engineering would be labeled "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" or "May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering."

Original post:

GMO showdown

Freedom and good governance

Posted on by

Sunday, June 17, 2012

HAVING granted our freedom was the most important event in the history of our country. Our forefathers sacrificed their lives just for us to be free against foreign aggression, tyranny and slavery. But were these sacrifices by our Filipino martyrs and heroes worth it today?

Good governance is what we aim for. Many years have passed and our country has experienced political cataclysms, financial and moral turmoil and military upheavals. The past events taught us hard lessons. The cries of our forefathers who were victims of fatal injustices oblige us not to repeat the sad, brutal, and violent experiences they had.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Leaders come and go and because of the influence of power and money, they either left bad or good legacies. Forty years of my existence, I have seen faces who are not satisfied with how our country is run by our leaders. Some of our leaders keep on repeating acts of corruption, injustices, and greed for power. There are good leaders, too, but at times the corrupt ones prevail.

History shows that we are deprived of real good governance. What is good governance? The true function of a government in all its branches is the security, peace and well-being of all the country's citizens which is the divine purpose of all humanity. It is only when government transcends its spheres that it comes in conflict with conscience of man. According to James H. Fairchild, "It should always be remembered that the great end of a government is human wellbeing, that law and authority are nothing in themselves, and that all their sacredness arises from the uses which they serve, the machinery of government is valuable, only for the work it does: in itself, it has no value, the most grievous of all imperfections in government is the failure to secure the just and the good results."

This years' commemoration of Independence Day in the City of Baguio was held at the Convention Center by public and private sectors with guest speaker Police Regional Director. Benjamin Magalong.

The celebration speaks of Freedom and Good Governance with the theme "Kalayaan: Pananagutan ng Bayan Para sa Tuwid na Daan." Mayor Mauricio G. Domogan said, "Whatever we do, it should abide on truth, justice, equality and brotherhood. The blood of our heroes runs in our veins so greatness shall be ours in the future." He added, our leaders fight for our freedom 100 years ago, this freedom that was given to us, we have to use it as freedom to teach, freedom to serve, freedom to help and freedom to build. He continued, "Leaders should serve their constituents well; offer wider opportunity in employment, eradicate hunger and evils in the society, help fight corruption and continue the legacy that is handed to us by our forefathers."

The police force is serving to eliminate graft and corruption and help maintain peace and order in the country. These statements were shared by Magalong. He added in his privilege speech, "Let us ignore those people who are talking behind our backs; they belong behind our backs, and everybody should walk the right path and unite ourselves for a better nation." Baguio Rep. Bernardo Vergara reiterated we should live to be an independent nation and prove to the world that we can be self-sufficient.

Despite the present social ills we are experiencing, let us not forget we are absolutely free. Let us use this freedom towards becoming a responsible citizen and continue doing great things for our country and fellowmen.

Read the rest here:

Freedom and good governance

Eugenics shadow still 'looms large,' historian says

Posted on by

Alexandra Stern is a University of Michigan historian of medicine and expert on eugenics who lectured at the University of Houston this spring on disability rights. The author of the forthcoming "Telling Genes: The Story of Genetic Counseling in America," she spoke with Chronicle medical reporter Todd Ackerman after the lecture about the limitations of genetic medicine, whether to take advantage of for-profit company genetic tests and how eugenics didn't die out with the Holocaust.

Q: In the history of medicine, how is the early 21st century likely to be remembered? Is this the genetic era, or is that still to come?

A: The genetic era has begun, but the big question is what we do with the information we now have to help people - to what extent will it lead to cures and more effective therapies? History shows the expectations and promise of a new era's technology are often much greater than what ends up being delivered.

Q: So you think we're likely to be disappointed?

A: Unfortunately, yes. We're a society in which people are interested in their DNA, how genetics affects them, but also want quick solutions, primed by the great progress we've seen in medicine from, for instance, vaccines and antibiotics. But those magic bullets don't translate well to genetic medicine. I don't want to come across as suggesting there won't be great outcomes, but the idea that we'll simply be able to decode the genome, tailor medicines to a particular person based on their genome and cure chronic disease I think there will be a lot of unmet expectations along those lines.

Q: How much are people receiving genetic diagnoses at this point?

A: Genetic tests or diagnoses are being offered in more and more areas of clinical medicine - from neurology to cardiology to oncology. But you're probably talking about those for-profit companies doing genomic testing that return a whole scorecard of probabilities of developing certain conditions.

I think people are increasingly seeking those out and that the problem is that what they get back is unfiltered. People not only need help deciphering their information, they also need help, from a genetic counselor, dealing with the psychological decision-making quandaries they face as a result of genetic testing, how to cope if you have a higher-than-average probability of developing, say, Alzheimer's.

Q: Has enough attention been paid to ethical questions raised by the coming genetic era?

A: It depends on whom you're talking about. Discussions tend to be very fragmented: bioethicists amongst themselves; scientists amongst themselves; disability rights people amongst themselves. But as a society are we having broad-based discussions about the ethical implications, what the priorities should be and what the changes mean for people with disabilities? I don't think so.

Read the rest here:

Eugenics shadow still 'looms large,' historian says

Eco system gets a boost with planting of 10,000 trees

Posted on by

It's a collaborative effort to plant Northern White Cedar Trees in a period of three weeks

MARQUETTE -- On Saturday, The Cedar Tree Institute launched The Manitou Project: a planting of 10,000 trees across the Upper Peninsula.

It's a collaborative effort to plant Northern White Cedar Trees in a period of three weeks. A special ceremony was held Saturday morning at the Moosewood Nature Center. The cedar is considered a medicinal tree among Native Americans.

Saturday was one of three seedling distribution days.

"All these trees that are replanted are commercially viable, and the White Cedar is not one of those, the White Cedar takes a long time to grow, isn't commercially viable and just helps reintroduce the eco-system the way it was originally meant to be," said volunteer Don Miller.

The 10,000th tree will be planted on July 7 at the Presque Isle Pavillion.

Originally posted here:

Eco system gets a boost with planting of 10,000 trees

Long Beach Island Re-Opens All Beaches To The Public

Posted on by

(Credit: Lauren Sullivan)

LONG BEACH ISLAND, N.J. (AP) All beaches on Long Beach Island were open to swimming on Sunday, a day after many were closed after medical waste and other debris washed up on shore.

Health officials say about nine miles of beaches, from Barnegat Light to Ship Bottom, were closed around 12:30 p.m. Saturday after several home-generated insulin syringes and other waste was found during beach-cleaning operations at high tide. Also found floating in the water were large amounts of eel grass, wood and some plastics.

Officials say recent storms, high tides and wind conditions likely spread the debris. They also believe some of it may have come ashore from combined sewer overflow systems or from the inner shorelines of the New York/New Jersey harbor areas.

No injuries were reported.

(Copyright 2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

See the original post here:

Long Beach Island Re-Opens All Beaches To The Public

Jersey beaches reopen after debris cleanup

Posted on by

The Long Beach Island Health Department has reopened 13 miles of beach from Barnegat Light to Beach Haven after closing the stretch on Saturday when medical waste, trash and debris washed ashore.

Daniel Krupinski, a senior inspector at the health department, said that township employees worked on Saturday and early Sunday to clean the beaches. Krupinksi said the decision to reopen the beaches in six towns was made around 9:15 a.m. Sunday.

"The beaches are clean," Krupinski said. "The ocean is an ever-changing environment, and we're going to continue to monitor it."

The closed beaches included: Barnegat Light, Beach Haven, Surf City and Ship Bottom.

Authorities surmise that the debris may have come from the sewer overflow systems or from the inner shore lines of harbor areas in New York and New Jersey.

Contact Darran Simon at 856-779-3829 or dsimon@phillynews.com, or follow him on Twitter @darransimon.

Follow this link:

Jersey beaches reopen after debris cleanup

Summer Guide 2012: Where to hit the beaches 

Posted on by

Todd Maisel, NY Daily News/Todd Maisel, NY Daily News

If you're looking for beachy keen fun, Coney Island is where thousands love to make a big splash.

Surfs up! A whopping 16 million sunbathers swarmed the Big Apples 14 miles of free public beaches last summer, and the Parks Department expects nearly 20 million on the oceanside this season.

The beaches are more popular than ever, with a lot of people choosing to stay at home to avoid the high costs of gas and other forms of travel, says Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe.

The great thing about our beaches is that theyre free and theyre accessible by mass transit.

Theres something new at each of the borough branches this year, which are open daily from 10 a.m.-6 p.m. through Labor Day weekend.

And whether you want to catch some rays or some waves, the outer boroughs, and their cousins on Long Island and the Jersey Shore, boast some the best sandy strips around to whet any appetite.

o

BEST FOR: Hanging 10

ROCKAWAY BEACH, QUEENS

See original here:

Summer Guide 2012: Where to hit the beaches 

Syringes turn up on N.J. island's beaches

Posted on by

SHIP BOTTOM, N.J., June 17 (UPI) -- Beaches on New Jersey's Long Beach Island reopened Sunday, one day after they were closed because insulin syringes were found in the sand, officials said.

The Long Beach Island Health Department said in a statement that the medical waste turned up on beaches in Ship Bottom, Surf City, Harvey Cedars, Barnegat Light and North Beach Haven, The Press of Atlantic City said. No injuries were reported.

The syringes -- which appeared to be the type meant for home-use by diabetics -- were discovered by lifeguards as the tide receded on the first day they were on duty, the newspaper said.

The discovery prompted the closure of most of the island's beaches Saturday afternoon.

Health Department Director Tim Hilferty said closing the beaches temporarily was necessary to "make sure that the public's best interest is served."

The department had not determined the source of the medical waste, though Hilferty said it likely did not originate on the island. It's possible it came from sewer-overflow systems or "from the inner shorelines of the New York-New Jersey Harbor areas," the department said.

Continue reading here:

Syringes turn up on N.J. island's beaches