Long-term success rates for eradication of Barrett's esophagus after endoluminal therapies

Feb. 12, 2013 ? A new study from researchers at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania reports that endoluminal (endoscopic) therapies, combining resection and ablation techniques, for patients with Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia or early mucosal cancer have a high success rate, with durable results and a low risk of complications. The researchers noted that endoscopic surveillance after successful eradication is required.

The study appears in the February issue of GIE: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a precancerous condition with a known risk of progressing to cancer, especially when high-grade dysplasia (HGD, abnormal cells) is observed. Esophagectomy has been the standard treatment for BE with HGD or early mucosal cancer (intramucosal carcinoma). Endoluminal therapy is an alternative to operative resection in selected patients with decreased morbidity and equivalent long-term results to surgery.

"Endoluminal therapy has not been broadly applied, and there is limited long-term follow-up. Moreover, endoluminal therapy techniques have evolved over time, challenging assessments of long-term efficacy and effectiveness," said study lead author Gregory G. Ginsberg, MD, FASGE, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and past president of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. "We sought to assess the efficacy, safety, and durability of an aggressive, endoscopic, multiple-mode approach of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (abnormal cells) in patients with HGD and/or intramucosal carcinoma. We found that multiple-mode endoluminal therapy, combining resection and ablation techniques, for Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer with intention to complete eradication of all intestinal metaplasia was successful, with low observed recurrence of dysplasia or cancer. However, recurrence of intestinal metaplasia occurs in one-third of cases, therefore persistent vigilant surveillance is required."

Endoluminal Therapies

Endoscopic therapy may include removal of Barrett's with dysplasia using endoscopic mucosal resection, which removes abnormal tissue in the esophagus without damaging the rest of the esophagus. Endoscopic ablation of Barrett's tissue can be done with either radiofrequency ablation, which destroys and kills cells by heating them, or cryotherapy, which destroys cells by freezing them. After either treatment, the esophagus grows back a normal healthy lining.

Methods

Endoluminal therapy is an option for selected patients with Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia or early cancer. In this study, researchers sought to assess long-term outcomes of patients treated with endoluminal therapy with the goal of complete eradication of all dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia. This was a retrospective cohort study of selected patients referred with dysplastic Barrett's esophagus at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between January 1998 and December 2009. Patients received endoluminal therapy combining resection and photodynamic therapy, radiofrequency ablation, and/or argon plasma coagulation treatment that was individualized based on patient and lesion characteristics, technique evolution and interval response. Complete eradication of dysplasia, all intestinal metaplasia, and recurrences was assessed.

Results

A total of 166 patients were treated and had at least one year of follow-up. Complete elimination of neoplasia (abnormal cells) was achieved in 157 patients (95 percent) and complete elimination of intestinal metaplasia was achieved in 137 patients (83 percent). After therapy, patients were followed for 33 (range 18-58) months. Among patients who achieved complete elimination of intestinal metaplasia, subsequent recurrent intestinal metaplasia was detected in 48 (35 percent) and dysplasia in 12 (9 percent).

Among those who achieved only complete elimination of dysplasia, recurrent dysplasia was detected in six of 19 patients (32 percent). Statistical analysis showed that multifocal dysplasia and patient's age were risk factors for dysplasia and carcinoma recurrence, and complete elimination of intestinal metaplasia was a protective factor. Retreatment achieved remission in 90 percent of cases. Forty-two patients (23.9 percent) had complications, including 21 with stricture (11.9 percent) and one treatment-related death. Most adverse events were minor and responded to endoscopic or supportive therapy.

The researchers concluded that multiple-mode endoluminal therapy, combining resection and ablation techniques, for patients with BE and HGD and/or early mucosal cancer, with the intention of achieving complete eradication of all intestinal metaplasia can achieve a high success rate with durable results and low risk of morbidity. However, endoluminal therapy typically requires multiple treatment sessions over many months, life-long proton-pump inhibitor therapy, and a commitment to endoscopic surveillance after successful eradication. Although the risk of dysplasia or cancer recurrence is low, it is increased when multifocal dysplasia is detected before and during treatment. Additionally, intestinal metaplasia recurrence is detected in one-third of successfully treated patients, and it can occur long after initial eradication was achieved. Therefore, endoscopic surveillance even after successful eradication is required.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Carlos Guarner-Argente, Thomas Buoncristiano, Emma E. Furth, Gary W. Falk, Gregory G. Ginsberg. Long-term outcomes of patients with Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia or early cancer treated with endoluminal therapies with intention to complete eradication. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2013; 77 (2): 190 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.013

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_health/~3/wLRGA3HI5_Q/130212112021.htm

nhl all star game 2012 pollyanna samuel adams snowy owl one for the money 10 minute trainer sarah burke death

Sarah Klein: To Cancer, on Valentine's Day

Cancer:

I doubt you're getting many love letters this Valentine's Day. Don't get excited -- this isn't one, either. But since you paid my Valentine a visit last month, I'd like to get a few things off my chest.

Our story was tricky enough without you. We met toward the end of our senior year of high school and really hit it off, only to leave for colleges hundreds of miles apart just a few short months later. We tried the long distance thing, which I'm sure even you would say was a bad idea. It only ever got harder. We tried keeping in touch while we dated other people without much luck, and we eventually drifted into what we now fondly refer to as "radio silence" before reconnecting at a mutual friend's wedding (clich?, I know) in 2011.

We'll never really know when during 2012 you snuck in, but you made yourself known just as I was starting to really get comfortable in our rekindled us-ness (which, I should mention, continues to be long-distance). It was just about three weeks after I had decided that all along, he was the one I'd been looking for -- a slap in the face of a reminder never to get too comfortable.

Of course, I'm not allowing myself to think that we don't have forever. You are easier to get rid of in testicular form, even if you persistently knock on our door.

I just wish you'd stop knocking.

I used to have this fear about him, that he couldn't possibly be right for me simply because we met in high school. I still cringe at the term "high school sweethearts." But my dating anxiety comes now from a world of much less-familiar territory.

We've learned words I never thought I'd utter -- "orchiectomy" being the most jarring. We've had straight-faced conversations about fertility when before I would only laugh off the idea of children. We've even had to talk -- albeit briefly -- about how down the road, health and life insurance could get messy.

And while the doctors say you've let him be for now, my head swirls with statistics. He has about a 1 in 775,000 chance of being struck by lightning. He has about a 1 in 5,000 chance of being killed in a car accident. He has about a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of becoming the president some day.

But there's a one-in-five chance that you come back to visit, the doctors say. A 20 percent chance that his surgery wasn't enough and that he'll need additional treatment. And in the meantime, MRIs and CT scans four times a year for the next five years, each appointment a little bubble of worry ready to burst.

The doctors, our families, my friends tell us those are great odds. And by cancer standards, they are. Even if he does need radiation or chemotherapy or more surgery, he's still better off than many of the men and women you terrorize. I can't pretend to know the slightest thing about the infinite uncertainties we are blessed not to have to face, or what hearing the words "Stage IV" must feel like, or what the women in that position -- standing by their men when their men can no longer stand -- are going through. But that doesn't mean a one-in-five chance of seeing your ugly face again makes me feel great.

You know who is feeling great, though? Him. From the moment he decided to voice his concerns about what you were doing to his body, he's been a model patient. My Valentine has been so brave, comforting me when I'm scared of you! He's laughed in hideous hospital gowns at the inconvenience of your visit landing right between Christmas and New Year's, and at the disbelief that he'd never had blood drawn prior to your antics.

You might wonder why I've decided to write, rather than just curse you in silence. You're right, writing to you certainly won't make him better. But there's a small chance it might resonate with someone noticing a change in his own body and convince him to bring his concerns to his doctor. It seems to me that men, and young men in particular, all too often avoid making appointments to be poked and prodded. It is my hope that after reading this, other young men, like my Valentine, won't wait any longer.

So, while I can't say it's been particularly "nice" to meet you, I did want to send you this valentine of sorts to let you know that you've undoubtedly made me -- and us -- stronger. So thanks for that, I guess.

I hope I never see you again,

Sarah

One week after surgery:

?

Follow Sarah Klein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sarklei

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-klein/dating-cancer_b_2672539.html

rutgers dharun ravi george clooney arrested ravi leigh espn greg oden

Finger-pointing trumps problem-solving on budget

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio takes questions from employees after a tour of Vinylmax LLC, Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, in Hamilton, Ohio. Vinylmax is a top window producing company. (AP Photo/Al Behrman)

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio takes questions from employees after a tour of Vinylmax LLC, Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, in Hamilton, Ohio. Vinylmax is a top window producing company. (AP Photo/Al Behrman)

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Just about everyone in official Washington is in agreement that big across-the-board spending cuts at the Pentagon and throughout domestic federal programs on March 1 are a bad idea.

So far, however, the warring tribes in the nation's capital seem more interested in finger-pointing than problem-solving.

Top House Republicans have embarked on a PR campaign reminding the public that the idea for the across-the-board cuts originated in Obama's White House.

Senate Democrats are preparing a bill to substitute about $120 billion in alternative deficit cuts over 10 years and prevent the automatic cuts ? in Washington parlance, a sequester ? through the end of calendar 2013. Its biggest component is a $47 billion tax increase on the rich; that is sure to prompt a GOP filibuster, probably successful, that will give Democrats political cover ? and ammo.

"We again find ourselves in sad and familiar territory," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Democrats sit on their hands until the last minute. Then they offer some gimmicky bill designed to fail."

Then there's President Barack Obama. He appeared before reporters at the White House last week to urge lawmakers to come up with a short-term plan to avoid the sequester. But Obama offered nothing specific, even though there are plenty of options at the ready after several recent rounds of failed Washington budget negotiations.

House Republicans do not have a plan to shut off the cuts and instead point to a spending cut bill that passed twice last year, most recently by a slender 215-209 vote in December. The GOP now controls eight fewer seats in the House and there's hardening sentiment among some tea party Republicans to allow the automatic cuts to take effect. It's not clear whether GOP leaders like Speaker John Boehner of Ohio could muster enough support to stop them.

The Senate bill would replace the automatic spending cuts with a tax increase patterned after the so-called Buffett Rule, which would require people with million-dollar incomes to pay a minimum 30 percent income tax. The rule is named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who championed it on the grounds that it wasn't fair for his secretary to pay a higher effective tax rate than him. That's because taxes on most earned or wage income are generally higher than taxes on investments.

The Buffett rule was a wedge issue in last year's campaign and was rejected by Senate Republicans in April. It's sure to prompt Republicans to scuttle the upcoming Democratic bill in a filibuster vote expected to be held just days before the cuts take effect March 1.

Republicans say the moment calls for presidential leadership.

"The president warned of grave economic consequences if the sequester were to go into effect, but he didn't announce any specific plans for how he would address it," Boehner told reporters last week. "He didn't bother to actually outline how he would replace the sequester that he suggested and insisted upon."

Senior White House aide Jason Furman said last week that any short-term plan should include "a balanced combination of spending and revenue measures." He would not elaborate. Nor have Obama and Boehner talked recently, other than pleasantries at the inauguration. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., haven't been in touch either, even as the cuts loom ever closer.

The idea for the sequester came from the White House during negotiations in the summer of 2011 to increase the government's borrowing cap. Then, the White House pushed it as a way to avoid a second vote to increase debt limit that would have occurred in the middle of Obama's re-election campaign.

Whatever their reservations, top Republicans voted for the idea.

The sequester was intended to be so harsh that its prospect would drive a deficit-cutting "supercommittee" created by those talks toward an agreement. It did not.

The cuts were originally due to hit Jan. 1 but lawmakers gave themselves a two-month reprieve in last month's deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.

Many Republicans see the prospect of the sequester as their best chance to force Obama to agree to cuts in government benefit programs like Medicare, and some tea party Republicans are willing to absorb the sequester cuts if he won't go along. GOP leaders across the board say they won't agree to tax increases demanded by Democrats as part of any solution.

Obama carries the power of his office and the fact that he's more popular with the public than Capitol Hill Republicans into the battle. So Republicans already have been working overtime to remind voters that the sequester idea came from Obama's administration. Still, blaming the president for something some GOP members are embracing promises to be a tightrope exercise for Republican leaders.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-02-12-Budget%20Fight/id-97cdf13d4ffa476ca679f030e4e4254f

ufc 143 results kickoff time super bowl 2012 superbowl national anthem patriots vs giants super bowl superbowl halftime show jason wu for target underwood

PFT: Dolphins' stadium 'welfare' for a billionaire?

AP

What might Bills defensive coordinator Mike Pettine be looking for in a safety?

WR Brian Hartline and S Chris Clemons continue to look like the likeliest Dolphins free agents to return next season.

Patriots DT Vince Wilfork?s offseason training program made room for shoveling snow last weekend.

Taking a look at the Jets linebacking corps.

Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti has no problem leaving football matters to G.M. Ozzie Newsome.

Bengals special teams coach Darrin Simmons says there?s no blueprint for going from his job to head coach.

Former Browns coach Sam Rutigliano warns owner Jimmy Haslam not to lose touch with the team.

Should Steelers LB James Harrison stay or go?

Texans LB Brian Cushing will give some updates on his rehab in an interview with the team?s website on Tuesday.

Colts players hosted local students at a show about Jackie Robinson as part of Black History Month.

The Jaguars made some changes in?their front office and announced that Macky Weaver, nephew of former owner Wayne Weaver, will be leaving the team.

Titans QB Matt Hasselbeck is working with former NFL LB Isaiah?Kacyvenski to promote a product designed to help diagnosis head injuries.

Some people don?t get why the Broncos drafted QB Brock Osweiler last year.

The Chiefs added TE Kevin Brock?to their roster.

DT Richard Seymour?s contract voided, but the Raiders still have remnants of it on their cap.

Marty Schottenheimer?s new book spares no criticism of former Chargers G.M. A.J. Smith.

G Charlie Bryant and DT Nick Hayden are the newest additions to the Cowboys roster.

A look at the state of the Giants defensive line.

How is Eagles coach Chip Kelly handling being on the podium during his press conferences?

What is WR Santana Moss? future with the Redskins?

The Bears signed CB LeQuan Lewis, who spent time with the Buccaneers and Cowboys last season.

People are talking about the Lions making a run at signing RB Reggie Bush.

S Charles Woodson and LB A.J. Hawk loom large as the Packers set their strategy for the offseason.

A vote for the Vikings and WR Percy Harvin to part ways.

The Falcons waived DB/LB Matt Hansen, who injured his knee while with the team last offseason.

A letter from Charlotte?s mayor got the ball rolling on the deal that will provide money for the Panthers? desired stadium renovations.

S Rafael Bush was to be an exclusive rights free agent, but said he?s already re-signed with the Saints.

Should the Buccaneers keep CB Eric Wright for the 2013 season?

An explanation of why trading WR Larry Fitzgerald doesn?t make sense for the Cardinals.

The Rams have teamed with Washington University to promote heart-healthy nutrition and lifestyles.

The rhino named after 49ers T Alex Boone will be living in an enclosure named after the Ravens as part of the San Francisco Zoo?s Super Bowl bet with the Maryland Zoo.

Eric Williams of the Tacoma News Tribune wonders if the Seahawks and Vikings should be talking about a trade involving QB Matt Flynn and WR Percy Harvin.

Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/11/ex-eagles-owner-dolphins-stadium-is-welfare-for-a-multi-billionaire/related/

mega ball winning numbers baltimore county current tv megamillions ncaa basketball tournament 2012 megamillions winning numbers lotto winner

Police: 4 wounded in Bourbon Street shooting

NEW ORLEANS (AP) ? Gunfire wounded four people on New Orleans' famed Bourbon Street as a costumed crowd partied amid the countdown to Mardi Gras, sending people running, police and bystanders said.

Four shots rang out rapidly Saturday night, followed by screams as some in the crowd staggered into one another and a nearby wall, video taken by a bystander and released by police showed. Authorities said in an email Sunday that an argument involving one of the victims led to the shooting. They described the video ? released early Sunday ? as showing two men leaving the argument and returning with a third before the gunfire erupted.

No arrests were immediately reported, and police said they were seeking the three men who fled.

The wounded were two males and two females, New Orleans Police spokesman Frank B. Robertson said. One male victim was in guarded condition Sunday with shots to the abdomen, thigh and pelvis, Robertson said. The second male was shot in the buttocks, one female was shot on the chin and right foot, and the second female was shot on the toe, according to Robertson's statement.

Police had said late Saturday that the most severely wounded man was undergoing surgery while the others were stable. None was identified by age or name.

The shooting came on the last weekend of partying before Mardi Gras, the Fat Tuesday celebration that is the signature tourist event of the year in New Orleans. And for thousands, the partying continued despite the shooting.

New Orleans has been plagued for years by violent crime, including gun violence that has soared since Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in 2005.

In 2011, sixteen people were shot and at least two killed in Halloween shootings in New Orleans. One of those killed ? a 25-year-old local resident ? was shot near the famous Chris Owens nightclub, about a block away from Saturday's incident.

Police placed the Saturday shooting in the 400 block of Bourbon Street.

Patrick Clay, 21, a Louisiana State University student, told The Times-Picayune that he was standing on the corner of Bourbon Street on Saturday night when suddenly he saw a crowd running and people screaming that there had been a shooting.

"Everyone immediately started running and the cops immediately started running toward where people were running from," Clay said. "I was with a group of about seven people and at that point, we all just kind of grasped hands and made our way through the crowd as soon as possible."

Some bartenders and revelers said the block of Bourbon Street where the shooting occurred was closed for a time while detectives investigated, but partying resumed hours later across that stretch.

Julia Rosenthal, a 19-year-old from Westchester, N.Y., had mixed feelings about hanging out in the French Quarter after the shooting. "It's not an OK thing that happened, and it's definitely scary. But I'm not going to let it affect my night," she said.

Peter Manabani, an employee at the Rat's Hole bar, said police had shut down a whole Bourbon Street block for an hour to investigate but allowed people to return to the area later.

Hours later on Sunday, there was little evidence that a shooting had occurred. Overnight revelers were in full party mode, packing the block amid a heavy police presence.

Laura Gonzalez, 21, of Baytown, Texas, said it was her first Mardi Gras and she spent some time in the Fat Catz bar nearby as police investigated. She said the bar locked its doors quickly after the shots rang out and wouldn't let anyone in or out while police went to the scene.

Asked if it was frightening, she responded: "Not really. We were just locked in a bar and we weren't going to let this one incident wreck our party."

Parades rolled all day Saturday but none on Bourbon Street because the streets are too narrow. One of the biggest Mardi Gras parades, the Krewe of Endymion, rolled down a major thoroughfare and just skirted Bourbon Street a few hours before the shooting. Typically, once the parades end, partygoers head to the French Quarter.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/police-4-wounded-bourbon-street-shooting-081910314.html

toure patti smith lottery winners lottery winners april fools day pranks ohio state vs kansas daniel von bargen

Tim Loughton MP: Here's some legislation on the family we can all ...

Tim Loughton is the Member of Parliament for East Worthing and Shoreham, and was Parliamentary Under Secretary for Children and Families from 2010 until 2012. Follow?Tim on Twitter.

Inevitably, this week?s headlines have been dominated by the controversial vote over gay marriage the media?s delight at being able to trot out the usual hackneyed clich?s about Tory Party splits. That conveniently ignores the fact that this was a free vote on a conscience issue and inevitably Conservative MPs, and indeed those from other parties, will have differing views and will be accountable to their own constituents.

Lost in the melee of last Tuesday was the Children & Families Bill unwisely published on the same day.? I say unwisely because it contains some really good legislation about improving support for getting more children adopted, shared parental leave and crucially shared parenting. And I narcissistically say good stuff because it reflects the culmination of issues I believe in passionately and had been working on for years as Children?s Minister and previously in Opposition.

The groundbreaking clauses on shared parenting confirm that the Government is to press ahead with changes long discussed by my party which will add a ?presumption of shared parenting? to the Children Act 1989. This delivers on a manifesto commitment Conservatives first made in 2005 and I tried to carry through with amendments to the Children & Adoption Bill in Opposition in 2006 only to be frustrated by? the then Labour Government.

Many commentators have lazily referred to the proposed changes in terms of ?father?s legal rights.? It is important to stress though that this is not about parent?s rights, neither mother?s nor father?s. It is about children?s rights and expectations and the responsibilities of both parents to their child.

All sensible people acknowledges that children do best when they have the fullest possible involvement with both parents either when in a happy family home or after a parental split. Studies show such children are 40% less likely to suffer mental health problems, less likely to become teenage pregnancy statistics and they achieve better at school too. This will not be the same for every child and it in no way takes away from the fantastic job that many single parents of either gender do whether they are single parents by choice or not. But these are the facts.

In over 90% of cases the resident parent after a split will be the mother. Some fathers will walk away from responsibilities to their children by choice and need to be pursued. In the case of a few it may not be safe to remain involved, but for too many their fervent attempts to remain actively involved during childhood can be frustrated by a former partner after an acrimonious split. The children become pawns between warring parents, the court room the combat arena, the taxpayer funds much of the conflict and everyone loses, not least the children caught in the middle. At its worst over a quarter of decent parents are completely frozen out and lose contact with their children within a few years.

Around 90% of separating couples are able to make arrangements for their children without recourse to the courts though contact arrangements will often still be problematic. But we need to make sure that fewer of the 10% who do resort to legal resolution often in very acrimonious and long drawn out proceedings, do so in the future. I want to see a large metaphorical warning sign outside of every family court which says that if you think you can use the court to play winner takes all, to exclude a non-resident parent out of a relationship with his or her kids altogether, then don?t even think about it unless there is a welfare threat to the children which can be clearly demonstrated. Because the presumption is that both parents will be required and expected to play their full role as parents just as when you had the children in the first place.

That is what a presumption of shared parenting enshrined in law is intended to do ? keep more warring parents out of court and persuade more of them to act like adults in the interests of their children earlier on. It should also be seen in the context of other ?beefed-up? upstream measures such as hard to reject mediation, less access to one sided legal aid and better enforcement measures when contract arrangements are willingly and often regularly breached. When you learn that last year there were only 53 enforcement orders and hardly ever will a judge resort to the nuclear option of transferring residency away from a parent serially frustrating contact, then it is clear how so many dads feel the system is against them.

Of course there will be opponents to such measures as attested by other less balanced headlines talking about divorced parents rights putting ?victims of violence at risk.? There are good reasons to keep some separating parents out of the picture on safety grounds and that is why the proposals being put forward now are still completely subject to the ?paramountcy principle of the welfare of the child.? That will not stop some of the regular suspects crying wolf despite the fact that I brought all sides on this argument round the table in the Department for Education when formulating the basis of the consultation which reported last year.

Opposition may be particularly vociferous in the Lords where can be felt the influence of a number of retired senior judges who? invariably resent anything that treads on the patently buckled toes of their profession?s autonomy in the court room without having to be ?tainted? by reading what goes on in Hansard. They also need to justify the huge variations in the way often neighbouring courts deal with contact arrangements and their breach and not least the amount of time cases drag on leaving children and non-resident parents drifting farther apart by default.

Others will point to the Australian experience of shared parenting which went wrong because it dealt in terms of an ill defined ?meaningful relationship? between parent and child and soon got bogged down in the minefield of equality of time which resulted in more litigation not less. But as I have stressed this Government?s shared parenting proposals are about keeping more parents out of court in the first place rather than fast tracking them into it.

The working and parenting practices of families who toil hard enough to stay together have changed greatly over recent decades. Fathers are, and want to be, more involved. The undeniable benefits of shared parenting for children even after a split haven?t changed. It is time the law caught up with that, so let?s not miss this opportunity at long last by wallowing too long in the fall out of the gay marriage debate when there is other important work to be done for the sake of our children.

Source: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/02/from-timloughton.html

Pacquiao vs Marquez 4 pacquiao Jim DeMint Dave Brubeck Duck Dynasty frankie muniz today show

A Financial Transaction Tax is Necessary and Feasible | The ...

By Amitabh Pal, February 8, 2013

A recent analysis reinforces the case for a financial transaction tax in the United States.

The idea has been around since the 1970s in one form or the other (I have a more than a decade-old poster for the tax up in my office). Now, Jesse Eisinger in a piece for ProPublica and the New York Times strengthens the justification for such a levy.

Eisinger makes a convincing argument that a tax of this sort would not be hard to collect, would calm down the irrational speculation that has harmed all of us, and would help reduce the federal deficit.

?The average American, who has limited exposure to the stock market, has little to fear from the tax and much to gain,? Eisinger writes. ?And if some of the high-frequency trading flees offshore? Good riddance.?

Eisinger?s reasoning has been backed up by others. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has also stated that the tax wouldn?t be too difficult to enforce due to the advent of modern technology. Plus, ?the financial sector polluted the global economy with toxic assets and now they ought to clean? up, Stiglitz said a few years ago.

Europe is getting its act together. Eleven countries on the continent, including France and Germany, are getting the ball rolling on such a tax. But the Obama Administration has been a major roadblock to anything of that sort happening here.

As Ron Suskind reported in ?Confidence Men,? his must-read account of economic policymaking under Obama, the President was sabotaged by his own underlings like Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithner.

? A financial transactions tax on banks and financial institutions, to try to tame the trading emphasis that has swept those industries and along the way, raise money: Obama said, in one meeting, ?We are going to do this!? ? Suskind wrote. ?Summers disagreed; it never materialized.?

And Geithner provided a more public face for the same pig-headedness.

?That's not something that we're prepared to support,? Geithner responded when then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown proposed a global transaction fees in 2009. With assistance from the IMF and Canada?s conservative government, the Obama Administration shot the idea down.

Geithner was so hell-bent against the tax that he alienated our allies.

In 2011, Geithner ?even chastised Europeans for moving towards implementation of such taxes in their own territories, prompting angry words from the Austrian finance minister,? writes Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Jacob Lew, his incoming replacement as Treasury Secretary, offers scant hope, since he doesn?t seem to have a basic understanding of financial markets.

?I don't believe that deregulation was the proximate cause? of the economic crisis, he said during his 2010 Senate confirmation hearing for his position as Office of Management and Budget director.

Progressives in Congress are trying to move forward undeterred. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio are reintroducing a bill asking for a tax of 3 cents per $100 of transaction. DeFazio has cited a Joint Tax Committee study that his bill would raise more than $350 billion in revenue over a decade.

But, in spite of the many benefits of his proposal, DeFazio knows that the Obama Administration is on the wrong side.

?That?s all they?re about,? DeFazio told the Washington Post in 2011. ?They are going to defend speculators until their dying breath.?

The Obama Administration needs to see the light here?before its Wall Street friends destroy the global economy again.

If you liked this article by Amitabh Pal, the managing editor of the Progressive magazine, please check out his article entitled "John Kerry?s Conventional Mindset."

Follow Amitabh Pal @amitpal on Twitter

Please log into Facebook to post comments.

Source: http://www.progressive.org/financial-transaction-tax

swizz beatz mpaa south carolina debate lauren scruggs william shatner seattle weather skier sarah burke