Traducea poate fi apostilata (supralegalizata) si fara ca documentul original sa fie apostilat deoarece reprezinta doua certificari/autentificari diferite. Apostila de pe documentul original autentifica actul original, stampilele si semnaturile de pe acesta (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la prefectura). Legalizare traduceri reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei traducatorului (aceasta procedura sa realizeaza la un birou notarial). Apostilarea/supralegalizarea traducerii reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei notarului care a legalizat traducerea (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la camera notarilor). Actele de studiu (emise in Romania) au nevoie de o stampila de la Centrul National de Recunoastere si Echivalare a Diplomelor pentru a putea fi apostilate la prefectura.
Se afișează postările cu eticheta traduceri legalizate. Afișați toate postările
Se afișează postările cu eticheta traduceri legalizate. Afișați toate postările
marți, 8 ianuarie 2013
Traduceri autorizate si legalizate
Traducea poate fi apostilata (supralegalizata) si fara ca documentul original sa fie apostilat deoarece reprezinta doua certificari/autentificari diferite. Apostila de pe documentul original autentifica actul original, stampilele si semnaturile de pe acesta (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la prefectura). Legalizare traduceri reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei traducatorului (aceasta procedura sa realizeaza la un birou notarial). Apostilarea/supralegalizarea traducerii reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei notarului care a legalizat traducerea (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la camera notarilor). Actele de studiu (emise in Romania) au nevoie de o stampila de la Centrul National de Recunoastere si Echivalare a Diplomelor pentru a putea fi apostilate la prefectura.
vineri, 11 februarie 2011
On SiCKO
by Michael F. Cannon
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
First, Mike, I want to thank you for inviting me to the Washington, D.C., premiere of your new movie SiCKO. You invited me even though you knew I was likely to criticize the film's prescription for health care reform.
Of course, we both know that's exactly why you invited me. You knew that I'd criticize your proposal that the U.S. adopt a government–run health care system, and that would bring added media attention to SiCKO in advance of its nationwide release this weekend. You created the news hook, and we both got the opportunity to air our views on health care reform. It was a win–win.
I want you to know that I've held up my end of the bargain. I've criticized SiCKO in whatever medium I could: from blog posts and podcasts to The New York Times. And I haven't held back. In one review, I even wrote, "from a policy standpoint — and I say this more in sadness than in anger — SiCKO was so breathtaking a specimen of ignorant propaganda that it would make Pravda blush." You just can't buy that kind of press.
I have to say, by making such a one–sided movie, you certainly made my job easier. For example, you show American patients who were denied medical care by greedy for–profit insurance companies. But you ignore the fact that power–hungry politicians do the same thing in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba. I suppose that's why the Canadian journalists at the Cannes Film Festival gave you such a grilling.
You laud socialized American institutions like public education and the post office. But you never mention that Americans criticize those same institutions for their high costs and poor quality.
You extol the virtues of France's economic system, which seems to have socialized everything right down to laundry service. But you never tell your audience that taxes in France are 50 percent higher than in the U.S., or that the French unemployment rate is double the U.S. rate. Instead, you just ask several bons vivants if they feel like they're doing well. (Mais bien sûr!)
For the record, Mike, I have also praised SiCKO for its sense of humor, for exposing the silliness of our ongoing embargo of Cuba, and for highlighting some of the more insane aspects of America's health care system. In the notes I took during the film — I know, I'm such a nerd — I actually wrote, "Thank God MM is telling these stories."
It is insane that insurance companies have so much say over what is "medically necessary." But why do you never mention — or don't you know? — that our own government hands that power to insurance companies by penalizing insurance that lets patients decide what's medically necessary?
It is insane that those 9–11 rescue workers had so much difficulty getting medical attention. At the D.C. premiere, I spoke with Reggie Cervantes, John Graham, and Bill Maher, as well as two other rescue workers who didn't go to Cuba. All five of them told me that they had health insurance on September 11, but that they lost their insurance when they lost their jobs.
Why don't you tell your audience that the U.S. government was partly responsible for Reggie, John, and Bill losing their insurance? After all, it is Congress that ties health insurance to employment. If Congress stopped meddling with health insurance, people like Reggie, John, and Bill could get coverage that sticks with them through the rough times.
You're also correct that the health care industry has way too much influence in Washington. But what do you expect? Congress directly controls almost half of our health care spending, and controls the rest indirectly. With so many of our health care decisions being made in Congress, is it any wonder that industry spends more than any other to influence Congress?
The way to reduce the industry's influence is to take those decisions away from Congress and return them to the people.
When we spoke before the D.C. premiere, you apologized for leaving a clip of me on the cutting room floor, and suggested that we get together sometime to discuss health care reform. I'll forgive you for the former if you'll make good on the latter. We may not agree on everything, but we share a sharp distaste for the status quo.
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
First, Mike, I want to thank you for inviting me to the Washington, D.C., premiere of your new movie SiCKO. You invited me even though you knew I was likely to criticize the film's prescription for health care reform.
Of course, we both know that's exactly why you invited me. You knew that I'd criticize your proposal that the U.S. adopt a government–run health care system, and that would bring added media attention to SiCKO in advance of its nationwide release this weekend. You created the news hook, and we both got the opportunity to air our views on health care reform. It was a win–win.
I want you to know that I've held up my end of the bargain. I've criticized SiCKO in whatever medium I could: from blog posts and podcasts to The New York Times. And I haven't held back. In one review, I even wrote, "from a policy standpoint — and I say this more in sadness than in anger — SiCKO was so breathtaking a specimen of ignorant propaganda that it would make Pravda blush." You just can't buy that kind of press.
I have to say, by making such a one–sided movie, you certainly made my job easier. For example, you show American patients who were denied medical care by greedy for–profit insurance companies. But you ignore the fact that power–hungry politicians do the same thing in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba. I suppose that's why the Canadian journalists at the Cannes Film Festival gave you such a grilling.
You laud socialized American institutions like public education and the post office. But you never mention that Americans criticize those same institutions for their high costs and poor quality.
You extol the virtues of France's economic system, which seems to have socialized everything right down to laundry service. But you never tell your audience that taxes in France are 50 percent higher than in the U.S., or that the French unemployment rate is double the U.S. rate. Instead, you just ask several bons vivants if they feel like they're doing well. (Mais bien sûr!)
For the record, Mike, I have also praised SiCKO for its sense of humor, for exposing the silliness of our ongoing embargo of Cuba, and for highlighting some of the more insane aspects of America's health care system. In the notes I took during the film — I know, I'm such a nerd — I actually wrote, "Thank God MM is telling these stories."
It is insane that insurance companies have so much say over what is "medically necessary." But why do you never mention — or don't you know? — that our own government hands that power to insurance companies by penalizing insurance that lets patients decide what's medically necessary?
It is insane that those 9–11 rescue workers had so much difficulty getting medical attention. At the D.C. premiere, I spoke with Reggie Cervantes, John Graham, and Bill Maher, as well as two other rescue workers who didn't go to Cuba. All five of them told me that they had health insurance on September 11, but that they lost their insurance when they lost their jobs.
Why don't you tell your audience that the U.S. government was partly responsible for Reggie, John, and Bill losing their insurance? After all, it is Congress that ties health insurance to employment. If Congress stopped meddling with health insurance, people like Reggie, John, and Bill could get coverage that sticks with them through the rough times.
You're also correct that the health care industry has way too much influence in Washington. But what do you expect? Congress directly controls almost half of our health care spending, and controls the rest indirectly. With so many of our health care decisions being made in Congress, is it any wonder that industry spends more than any other to influence Congress?
The way to reduce the industry's influence is to take those decisions away from Congress and return them to the people.
When we spoke before the D.C. premiere, you apologized for leaving a clip of me on the cutting room floor, and suggested that we get together sometime to discuss health care reform. I'll forgive you for the former if you'll make good on the latter. We may not agree on everything, but we share a sharp distaste for the status quo.
Illegeracy
What is it about our political culture that causes everyone to be so damn polarized? Or maybe most people really aren’t so polarized and it’s the media that makes it seem so. I can only imagine that is in fact the pop cultured Inquireresque media, that is tearing away the moral fabric from this once honorable American culture. The American public is everyday, driven farther and farther away from the core values of this nation. We can blame only ourselves for letting this happen. It’s not capitalism, conservatism, or liberalism that might be to blame. No, capitalism is necessary for our way of life, or should I say essential; and liberalism is also an important element which exists to keep the conservatives in check and v/v. They aren’t the issue, what is the issue is education. We are obligated as Americans to educate our neighbors. We owe it to the future of this nation to actively be involved in our communities. How many of us criticize everything we don’t agree with and then look in the mirror and realize that we had never actually tried to be part of a solution? So many of us go about our mundane lives and complain about the democrats and the republicans… How about we quit our bitching and become part of a solution.. Have you ever heard of illegeracy? Well here you go.. read on
…
An illegerate person is a person who feels like they cannot make a difference in society. They ultimately give up and worry only about themselves. They bitch and bitch about the world around them but never really do anything to change it. Illegeracy is the failure of an individual to realize that as a citizen it is their duty to get involved and help society progress into the future. It is the individual’s failure to see the condition of their life as open to choices. Illegeracy can also be described as exiting the political system. A person who is illegerate is incapable of making sense of his cultural situation or is culturally confused.
The main factor or characteristic involved in this political-social-cultural phenomenon is aliteracy. Aliteracy is the act of not reading. An aliterate individual is someone who is capable of reading yet chooses not to. The development of the American political cultural is now in constant competition with the popular mass culture. The popular culture often negatively influences people’s values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. This negative influence along with the simultaneous failure of the media and the American education system promotes and motivates Illegeracy in our society. The popular culture of America is defeating the very important political culture by causing apathy, cynicism, and empty if not non-existent political discourse. Illegeracy is seen more in the lower socioeconomic class, than in the higher socioeconomic classes. Higher levels of education almost ensure that an individual is involved in their political culture. As the levels of education drop we see that Illegeracy increases.
One of the consequences that follows Illegeracy is called cultural confusion. Cultural confusion is the constant misperception of reality and being unable to identify. Cultural confusion leads to false consciousness. False consciousness in Marxist theory is a failure to recognize the instruments of one's oppression or exploitation as one's own creation, as when members of an oppressed class unwittingly adopt views of the oppressor class. Illegeracy promotes the abdication of ones political power to help choose the direction of society. Exercising our political power that we have as citizens is not only a right but also a duty. Illegerate people don’t understand that duty or they never new it from the beginning.
Illegeracy’s impact on politics in America is severe. It leads a citizen to the feeling that his or her life is not open to choice. After a person decides that they have no choices, they give up any political power to influence the direction of society. It reduces political participation, it undermines political discourse, and it leads to a depoliticized society. The illegerate people of our society express passivity, which reinforces political avoidance, and ultimately contributes to anti intellectualism.
It is clear that the media and education systems, are failing us. The media, which is supposed to educate us, has become an entertainment and consumer based industry. News programs, magazines, and even newspapers are neglecting to focus on the important news and opting to focus on entertaining us rather then informing us. The media is at partial fault, but our public education system should take most of the blame. Public education has become a system that thoughtlessly ignores subjects such as politics, provokes anti-intellectualism and widely accepts mediocrity. Therefore, the simultaneous failure of the media and education will continue to produce a society of illegerate citizens.
…
An illegerate person is a person who feels like they cannot make a difference in society. They ultimately give up and worry only about themselves. They bitch and bitch about the world around them but never really do anything to change it. Illegeracy is the failure of an individual to realize that as a citizen it is their duty to get involved and help society progress into the future. It is the individual’s failure to see the condition of their life as open to choices. Illegeracy can also be described as exiting the political system. A person who is illegerate is incapable of making sense of his cultural situation or is culturally confused.
The main factor or characteristic involved in this political-social-cultural phenomenon is aliteracy. Aliteracy is the act of not reading. An aliterate individual is someone who is capable of reading yet chooses not to. The development of the American political cultural is now in constant competition with the popular mass culture. The popular culture often negatively influences people’s values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. This negative influence along with the simultaneous failure of the media and the American education system promotes and motivates Illegeracy in our society. The popular culture of America is defeating the very important political culture by causing apathy, cynicism, and empty if not non-existent political discourse. Illegeracy is seen more in the lower socioeconomic class, than in the higher socioeconomic classes. Higher levels of education almost ensure that an individual is involved in their political culture. As the levels of education drop we see that Illegeracy increases.
One of the consequences that follows Illegeracy is called cultural confusion. Cultural confusion is the constant misperception of reality and being unable to identify. Cultural confusion leads to false consciousness. False consciousness in Marxist theory is a failure to recognize the instruments of one's oppression or exploitation as one's own creation, as when members of an oppressed class unwittingly adopt views of the oppressor class. Illegeracy promotes the abdication of ones political power to help choose the direction of society. Exercising our political power that we have as citizens is not only a right but also a duty. Illegerate people don’t understand that duty or they never new it from the beginning.
Illegeracy’s impact on politics in America is severe. It leads a citizen to the feeling that his or her life is not open to choice. After a person decides that they have no choices, they give up any political power to influence the direction of society. It reduces political participation, it undermines political discourse, and it leads to a depoliticized society. The illegerate people of our society express passivity, which reinforces political avoidance, and ultimately contributes to anti intellectualism.
It is clear that the media and education systems, are failing us. The media, which is supposed to educate us, has become an entertainment and consumer based industry. News programs, magazines, and even newspapers are neglecting to focus on the important news and opting to focus on entertaining us rather then informing us. The media is at partial fault, but our public education system should take most of the blame. Public education has become a system that thoughtlessly ignores subjects such as politics, provokes anti-intellectualism and widely accepts mediocrity. Therefore, the simultaneous failure of the media and education will continue to produce a society of illegerate citizens.
Desegregation
by Andrew J. Coulson
Andrew J. Coulson is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom and author of Market Education: The Unknown History. He blogs at Cato-at-Liberty.org.
In a landmark opinion issued Thursday morning, the United States Supreme Court struck down race–based student assignment programs in the Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., public–school districts. Defenders of racial–assignment policies may not realize it for years, but this ruling could be the best thing to happen to the education of minority children since the court struck down segregated schooling in 1954.
Both districts had argued that assigning students to schools based on race is necessary, at least on occasion, to ensure diverse student bodies and improve minority–student achievement. But the court's majority found that they failed to make that case — that the harm done by these programs is "undeniable," while the need for them is "unclear."
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts cited an earlier Supreme Court finding that "government action dividing people by race is inherently suspect because such classifications promote notions of racial inferiority and lead to a politics of racial hostility." He also invoked the court's seminal Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which overturned segregated schooling and "required school districts to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis."
The Seattle and Jefferson County districts, Roberts wrote, simply hadn't proved that their race–based policies were necessary to achieve their stated goals, or that they had seriously considered alternative policies.
That last point makes the court's decision monumentally important — for it draws attention to other, perhaps better, ways of promoting diversity and improving minority students' achievement.
In the immediate wake of the Brown ruling, the NAACP and others championed voluntary school–choice programs as a viable avenue toward improved integration. Many civil–rights leaders have forgotten choice in the half–century since, but it has retained the interest of scholars and activists. And their verdict is in: Choice works.
On every goal championed by advocates of race–based school assignment, private schools and parental–choice programs that ease access to them have a strong positive record — bringing residential and classroom integration and improving minority–student outcomes.
Duke University economist Thomas Nechyba has found that our conventional, district–based public–school system worsens residential segregation: By tying schools to students' addresses, it encourages the wealthy to "choose" their schools by opting to live in upscale neighborhoods. And his research strongly suggests that a school–choice program that made both private and public schools affordable to all families would greatly reduce the residential segregation that today's public–schooling arrangements have caused.
A central goal of compulsory integration polices has been to achieve racial balance at the school level. But Harvard's Civil Rights Project has observed that public schools are little more racially integrated today than they were before such policies were introduced.
And even schools with racially balanced enrollments don't necessarily have meaningful integration. It is quite common for students to self–segregate by race within schools, having comparatively little social interaction. Ohio State University sociologist James Moody has observed that "simple exposure does not promote integration," so schools that appear integrated "by the numbers" may not have meaningfully integrated hallways, lunchrooms, or even classrooms.
A decade ago, professor Jay Greene (now at the University of Arkansas) had a brilliant idea to test for truly meaningful integration: look at lunchrooms. With colleague Nicole Mellow, Greene photographed lunchrooms in public and private schools in several cities. They found that students are most likely to choose to sit with children of other races in private, not public, schools.
A recent study by Greg Forster of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation similarly finds that "private schools are actually less segregated than public schools when examined at the classroom level; and that private schools participating in voucher programs … are much less segregated than public schools."
So what about educational outcomes for minority students? Here again, the most significant benefits to private schooling tend to be enjoyed by African–American students, both in achievement and graduation rates:
University of Chicago economist Derek Neal has found that black students at inner–city Catholic schools are far more likely to complete high school, be accepted to college and complete college than similar students who attend public schools.
Reviewing the outcomes of school–choice programs in several cities, Harvard political scientist Paul Peterson found that academic achievement gains from private–school attendance are greatest among black students.
All this evidence was available before the court's recent ruling; most civil–rights activists have ignored it because they were committed to pursuing integration by force. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down such programs, these activists — and sympathetic policymakers — should take the court's hint and seek alternatives for advancing the education of minority children. If they do, they'll find school choice.
Andrew J. Coulson is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom and author of Market Education: The Unknown History. He blogs at Cato-at-Liberty.org.
In a landmark opinion issued Thursday morning, the United States Supreme Court struck down race–based student assignment programs in the Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., public–school districts. Defenders of racial–assignment policies may not realize it for years, but this ruling could be the best thing to happen to the education of minority children since the court struck down segregated schooling in 1954.
Both districts had argued that assigning students to schools based on race is necessary, at least on occasion, to ensure diverse student bodies and improve minority–student achievement. But the court's majority found that they failed to make that case — that the harm done by these programs is "undeniable," while the need for them is "unclear."
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts cited an earlier Supreme Court finding that "government action dividing people by race is inherently suspect because such classifications promote notions of racial inferiority and lead to a politics of racial hostility." He also invoked the court's seminal Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which overturned segregated schooling and "required school districts to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis."
The Seattle and Jefferson County districts, Roberts wrote, simply hadn't proved that their race–based policies were necessary to achieve their stated goals, or that they had seriously considered alternative policies.
That last point makes the court's decision monumentally important — for it draws attention to other, perhaps better, ways of promoting diversity and improving minority students' achievement.
In the immediate wake of the Brown ruling, the NAACP and others championed voluntary school–choice programs as a viable avenue toward improved integration. Many civil–rights leaders have forgotten choice in the half–century since, but it has retained the interest of scholars and activists. And their verdict is in: Choice works.
On every goal championed by advocates of race–based school assignment, private schools and parental–choice programs that ease access to them have a strong positive record — bringing residential and classroom integration and improving minority–student outcomes.
Duke University economist Thomas Nechyba has found that our conventional, district–based public–school system worsens residential segregation: By tying schools to students' addresses, it encourages the wealthy to "choose" their schools by opting to live in upscale neighborhoods. And his research strongly suggests that a school–choice program that made both private and public schools affordable to all families would greatly reduce the residential segregation that today's public–schooling arrangements have caused.
A central goal of compulsory integration polices has been to achieve racial balance at the school level. But Harvard's Civil Rights Project has observed that public schools are little more racially integrated today than they were before such policies were introduced.
And even schools with racially balanced enrollments don't necessarily have meaningful integration. It is quite common for students to self–segregate by race within schools, having comparatively little social interaction. Ohio State University sociologist James Moody has observed that "simple exposure does not promote integration," so schools that appear integrated "by the numbers" may not have meaningfully integrated hallways, lunchrooms, or even classrooms.
A decade ago, professor Jay Greene (now at the University of Arkansas) had a brilliant idea to test for truly meaningful integration: look at lunchrooms. With colleague Nicole Mellow, Greene photographed lunchrooms in public and private schools in several cities. They found that students are most likely to choose to sit with children of other races in private, not public, schools.
A recent study by Greg Forster of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation similarly finds that "private schools are actually less segregated than public schools when examined at the classroom level; and that private schools participating in voucher programs … are much less segregated than public schools."
So what about educational outcomes for minority students? Here again, the most significant benefits to private schooling tend to be enjoyed by African–American students, both in achievement and graduation rates:
University of Chicago economist Derek Neal has found that black students at inner–city Catholic schools are far more likely to complete high school, be accepted to college and complete college than similar students who attend public schools.
Reviewing the outcomes of school–choice programs in several cities, Harvard political scientist Paul Peterson found that academic achievement gains from private–school attendance are greatest among black students.
All this evidence was available before the court's recent ruling; most civil–rights activists have ignored it because they were committed to pursuing integration by force. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down such programs, these activists — and sympathetic policymakers — should take the court's hint and seek alternatives for advancing the education of minority children. If they do, they'll find school choice.
Fitzy and Mt. Goat
As it stands, the constitution says that is acceptable to pardon somebody for a convicted crime and the person who is allowed, by the letter of the law, to decide which criminals and which crimes are to be pardoned, is the President of the United States.. Whether we like it or not.. All presidents have pardoned questionable criminals and they will continue to do so.. Take a gander at the list of criminals that have been pardoned.. Its pretty amazing that some of them have even been considered... Drug dealers, deserters, tax evaders, etc. etc.
Fitzy and Stink
Lets not forget about Marc Rich.... Much more shady than the Libby situation.... Scandalous... But I'm not calling foul because the Pres. has the right to do it... As far as Stinks comment about putting people in danger--- that's just not so. Check out MG's facts. The media has pulled the wool over your eyes my friend.. And so the both of you know I 'm not trying to break your balls and appreciate you guys being part of pjcountry..
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)