Government Grants for All

2009 Ultimate Guide to Federal Grants and Government Benefits: Student Aid Money, Grant Writing, Proposal Writing, Applications, Forms, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (Two CD-ROM Set) Reviews

2009 Ultimate Guide to Federal Grants and Government Benefits: Student Aid Money, Grant Writing, Proposal Writing, Applications, Forms, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (Two CD-ROM Set)

Newly revised and expanded for 2009 with updated material not found in earlier editions, our unique electronic book on two CD-ROMs has an amazing collection of the finest federal documents and resources on government grants plus assistance programs for small businesses. New for 2009: extensive coverage of federal student aid programs, with Education Department information on college loans, and the 2009 Federal Student Aid Handbook. There is a section on getting files and records from government

List Price: $ 24.95 Price: $ 24.95

Find More Government Student Grant Products

Tags: 2009, Applications, Assistance, benefits, Catalog, CDROM, Domestic, Federal, Forms, Government, Grant, Grants, Guide, Money, Proposal, Reviews, Student, ULTIMATE, Writing

2011 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and Federal Grants: Government Assistance for People and Small Business: Grants, Loans, Aid, Applications, New Programs, FOIA Records, Foundations (CD-ROM)

2011 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and Federal Grants: Government Assistance for People and Small Business: Grants, Loans, Aid, Applications, New Programs, FOIA Records, Foundations (CD-ROM)

If you're looking for a comprehensive and up-to-date guide to federal grants, loans, and benefit programs for individuals, non-profit organizations, and small businesses, our electronic book on CD-ROM has an amazing collection of the finest documents and resources on grants, loans, and assistance programs for individuals, non-profit groups, businesses, students - everyone! New for 2011: a comprehensive CFDA Program list spreadsheet - exclusively formatted - with 2036 programs listed by 38 detail

List Price: $ 18.95 Price: $ 18.50

Tags: 2011, Applications, Assistance, Business, Catalog, CDROM, Domestic, Federal, FOIA, foundation's, Government, Grants, Loans, People, Programs, Records, Small

2003 Guide to Federal Grants and Government Assistance to Small Business: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Loans, Grants, Surplus Equipment, SBA, GSA, SEC Information for Entrepreneurs, Startup Kit, Loan Programs, Financing, Law, Regulations, Reports, Workbooks Applying for Federal Assistance (CD-ROM)

2003 Guide to Federal Grants and Government Assistance to Small Business: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Loans, Grants, Surplus Equipment, SBA, GSA, SEC Information for Entrepreneurs, Startup Kit, Loan Programs, Financing, Law, Regulations, Reports, Workbooks Applying for Federal Assistance (CD-ROM)

This is a spectacular collection of federal documents and resources compiled from the complete contents of two of our popular CD-ROMs (ISBN 193182889X and ISBN 1592480373). It's a great value - purchased individually, these CD-ROMs would cost $49.90, so you save over 60% by purchasing this CD-ROM! FEDERAL GRANTS Here is the OFFICIAL guide to Federal Grants and other assistance, produced by the Federal Government, with over 16,000 pages of loans, grants, surplus equipment, and training from

List Price: $ 19.95 Price: $ 19.95

Tags: 2003, Applying, Assistance, Business, Catalog, CDROM, Domestic, Entrepreneurs, Equipment, Federal, Financing, Government, Grants, Guide, Information, Loan, Loans, Programs, Regulations, Reports, Small, Startup, Surplus, Workbooks

Domestic Adoption “Baby Boom” – Exploiting Women and Families in America

Marion, IA (PRWEB) June 9, 2004

The recent headlines must give hope to people who want to adopt a baby: “Local adoption agency has rare openings” and “Catholic Charities expands its adoption program”. The first article describes a domestic adoption “baby boom”; the second article announces an expansion in a domestic adoption program. But by announcing domestic adoption “baby booms” these agencies might as well be announcing their role in the exploitation of United States citizens.

Not only do mothers who lose children to adoption have life-long problems so severe that some commit suicide as a result, but there is also a higher rate of suicide, childlessness, divorce, alcoholism, and other addictions among adoptees than the norm in society.

Those who profit from adoption blame the adoptees’ problems on genetics. If genetics is the cause, the collection of statistical data might clear up any doubt. In the many cases where mothers married their adopted-out child’s father and had other children, it could be determined what percentage of the kept children experienced the same problems as the adopted-out ones.

According to statistics compiled on adoption.com the mothers who lose babies to adoption “often come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. These women come from intact families.” (Stolley, 1993) These mothers and their families are more likely to be naïve than to be genetically defective. Told “everyone benefits” from adoption and in the absence of any real information, they may think it’s true. In poorer families, younger “adoptable” children and babies are systematically taken under the guise of child protection. The poverty frequently follows divorce or is related to medical problems of some family member. Most of the mothers have jobs. And although the people who know these moms may see a caring, wonderful, competent individual from the perspective of the government they are only a source of babies for adoption.

The fact that adoptees and natural mothers frequently have serious problems due to separation is well known to experts.

In a paper entitled “CHALLENGING THE SILENCE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITY ON ADOPTION ISSUES” published in the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol. II, No. 2. April 2002, Douglas B. Henderson (University of Wisconsin, Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology) discusses some of the reasons for the experts silence on the issue: Professionals not wanting to admit to failure, the money to be made in adoption, and an unwillingness on the part of adoptees to appear ungrateful to their adopters are a few.

He explains the techniques used by the National Council For Adoption, which represents the agencies that profit from adoption, to silence others: “…the NCFA has attempted to marginalize and pathologize anyone who reports that adoption experiences are problematic. Setting themselves up as the national experts on adoption, while actually representing not the adoptees and (natural) parents who have lived adoption but rather the agencies making money on adoptions, the NCFA has long accused anyone who criticized adoption practices as being ‘antiadoption.’”

With all that is known by experts about the ill effects of separating family and of the secrecy in adoption, it remains that adoption is a very lucrative business. Thanks to lobbying efforts we now have government funding for Infant Adoption Awareness training, maternity homes, adoption counseling, subsidies and other aid for adopters, and so-called “safe havens” where a frightened mother unsure of how to get real help may leave her newborn son or daughter. In some states there are adoption aid “Choose Life” license plates, with proceeds going toward advertising and adoption services.

Those in the health professions can become an “Adoption Specialist” after a free three-day training program. There is no requirement that this training inform trainees of the life-long emotional consequences of surrender/adoption to mother, child or other family members.

By implementing the Adoption University@ curriculum in schools both mother and father may be influenced to “choose” adoption before they are even expecting. All risks are hidden and the implementation of this training in a group setting makes it possible for an opposing viewpoint to be squelched by the group.

The joy and pride of parents and grandparents who have maintained hope, worked through their issues and kept their children is very evident. But with all the adoption training now implemented, a pregnant mother is likely to encounter teachers, doctors, nurses, counselors and others who will not mention the joys of motherhood, but instead will pressure her to surrender all parental rights and will speak of surrender in glowing terms to her parents as well. Her baby’s father is unlikely to support her when adoption has been presented as “better” than taking responsibility for his own child.

A young pregnant mother or her parents may be lured by a “dorm” with “park-like setting”, “beautiful swimming pool” and “cozy fireplace”. Separated from family and society to aid in “decision-making” and repeatedly hearing “It’s your choice” the mothers will leave this maternity home still bleeding from childbirth saying “It was my choice”. With their thoughts constrained by the carefully chosen phrases provided by the adoption industry, it’ll be years before they comprehend that in the their best interest and the best interest of their child the risks of adoption should have been disclosed and the choice to keep children they give birth to should have been promoted.

Other coercive tactics used to obtain babies include having prospective adopters chosen in advance and even present at the birth (and we wouldn’t want to disappoint them, would we?).

The cruelest tactic used to obtain a baby is the use of the open adoption “carrot”, the promise to a mother or family of continuing contact with their child. Many parents don’t know that the adoption may be closed at any time without their consent. Frequently, the adoption is closed immediately; the promise of openness made only to lure them in. For the natural family, it’s devastating.

From the industry standpoint, open adoption has a clear advantage: Mothers whose children were adopted-out know that for speaking out honestly about the effects of adoption on themselves, their child and the rest of their family, the “punishment” will be cutting off all contact with their child. So, as they see their adopted-out children cared for by nannies, treated harshly by male adopters who didn’t really want them in the first place, denied access to their siblings or experiencing other problems these mothers keep quiet or even continue to promote adoption. They may have to convince themselves it is “better” or was “meant to be” just to cope.

The intense solicitation to obtain babies now includes offers to pay “expenses” far beyond pregnancy-related costs. These “expenses” include scholarships, car payments, entertainment, house maintenance, credit card payments and personal loans. How does this compare to soliciting to buy children from families off the streets in Cambodia? THAT is considered criminal! After accepting this aid, a mother may be coerced by agencies or lawyers using the lie that she will have to pay all expenses back if she decides to keep her child. Not surprisingly, there is adopters insurance to protect the adopters.

New tactics to obtain babies are being developed all the time. Even whole nuclear families may be advised that it is “best” to surrender their new baby if a parent has been laid off temporarily.

In his paper, Douglas B. Henderson concludes: “It is time for the silence of the mental health professions on issues related to adoption to end…. Continuing the silence will serve the interests of no one, and will lead to further difficulties for all those touched by the adoption process.”

A domestic adoption “baby boom” should not be a source of pride, but of shame on the part of agencies, medical experts, the government and others for having exploited citizens of our own country, the United States, to obtain babies.

Laurie Frisch

Marion, IA

“Protecting the Rights of Mothers and Natural Families”

# # #

Related Government Scholarships For Moms Press Releases

Tags: Adoption, America, Baby, boom, Domestic, Exploiting, Families, Women

Male Victims of Domestic Violence – When HE is the Victim

There are many programs for female victims of domestic violence too numerous to mention – and that’s a good thing. But what happens when the MALE is the victim of domestic violence? Are we as a society quick to intervene, do we show compassion for the male victim, or do we simply look the other way?

Mainstream media and cheesy tabloids exploded with the news. A physical altercation left singer Rihanna bruised, allegedly by her equally-popular, then-boyfriend, Chris Brown.

The news traveled far and fast. People everywhere were furious and even the hip-hop world spoke out on the alleged assault. Talk shows dedicated entire episodes on the topic of violence against women and rightly so.

For a certainty, the subject of domestic violence (DV) is no longer taboo. As recently as the early 1990’s, the topic was only spoken of in smaller, more intimate circles. There were whispers in the dark and for the most part, people – including the victims’ family members – turned a blind eye.

While the outrage toward domestic violence is most appropriate, we often view the victims as our mother, sister, daughter or other female acquaintance.

But what happens when the male is the victim of domestic violence? While there are hundreds of human service programs to aid female victims, most male victims of domestic violence are shown no compassion, and are, quite frankly, forgotten. What’s worse: many people aren’t even aware such brutality exists. And yet, of the 400,000 annually-reported incidents of domestic violence, about 40 percent include male victims of domestic violence, abused either by their male partners, their wives or their girlfriends.

Yes, domestic violence seems to be an equal opportunity plague in our society.

The Silent Plague

“Lee” is one such victim. But to hear him tell it the relationship is not a “domestic violence” issue. Lee says, “As a straight man, you don’t want to believe you’re the ‘victim’ of anything – let alone domestic violence. It’s not a macho image.”

Like female victims, male victims of domestic violence are often themselves misled. For example, Lee goes on to say that the problems he experiences with his Baby-Mama is “normal relationship” drama. He says this just after telling me that Baby-Mama threatens to take his children away; has appeared (uninvited) at his place of employment on several occasions; and at one point broke out his car windshield. Lee has also been physically abused at the hands of his Baby-Mama.

Lee’s outlook on domestic violence is all too common. While society would view a male stalker as an obvious threat, a female stalker seems less threatening. But the numbers don’t support that view.

Statically speaking, over 370,000 men are stalked annually in the Unites States. Of that number, 30 percent of stalkers are intimate partners. Yet, only 10 percent of male victims of domestic violence seek a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order from the courts.

Lee explains why he never sought a PFA. “As a Black man, I have been the object of racism by the police. I don’t trust them, so why would I call them if I’m in need of help? And…she is the mother of my children.”

Racist authority aside, there are also other underlying factors that contribute to the ignorance of the ever-growing trend of domestic violence against males. As one DV counselor put it, “It’s hard enough for women to admit they’re in a dangerous situation. As difficult as it is for women, male victims of domestic violence are three times as likely to overlook a serious domestic violence issue.”

In fact, no one knows the accurate numbers of male victims of domestic violence, since men seldom bring their issues out in the open.

Why Stay?

The reasons men stay in abusive relationships mirror that of female abuse victims: (1) for the children; (2) assuming blame for the abuse; (3) dependency on the abuser.

For the Children – Like many female victims of domestic violence, male victims of domestic violence often stay in the relationship to protect their children from the abuser. Often the male victim feels that the object of the abuser’s rage might be directed toward the children if he did not reside in the home, or that the children might be used against him. As in Lee’s case, the thought of never seeing his children haunted him. He decided to stay. Yes, Lee yet remains a statistic, one of hundreds of thousands of male victims of domestic violence.

Assuming Blame – Again, like their female counterparts, many male victims of domestic violence assume ‘they deserve what they get.’ While the truth is far from the mantra, the psychological burden often takes its toll on the victim until there is no more fight left. Male victims of domestic violence simply give up and resort themselves to a life of victimization through emotional, mental or physical abuse.

Dependency on the Abuser for Survival – In many circumstances, male victims of domestic violence are dependent on their abuser, either mentally, emotionally or financially. This scenario leaves the male victim feeling worthless, depressed or anxious, as he relies on the very person who harms him to provide his everyday needs for survival.

What can WE Do?

“Our society must view violence as just that – violent behavior. It doesn’t matter who the abuser might be. We [society as a whole] need to report abuse whenever we witness it,” explains the aforementioned DV counselor.

Whereas society is often quick to dial 9-1-1 when we witness an assault on a woman, we often look in the opposite direction when the victim is a man.

“I have clients that feel they have no way out because they don’t have the same support system that a woman might have. Most male victims of domestic violence would never call their homeboys to tell them they got a black eye from their partner. The thought of being ridiculed is greater than the affects of the abuse,” says the counselor. “Often society thinks male victims of domestic violence should simply ‘man-up’!”

This type of ignorance often comes at a much heavier price. When we neglect to reveal incidents of domestic violence, the ones who suffer most are the children raised in homes where abuse is taking place. Studies show that children who witness abused relationships have a likely chance of growing up to be either a victim or an abuser.

If we as a society don’t soon step up to the plate, the ongoing trend of violence in our communities will continue. In short, whether an abuse victim is a man or woman, abuse is still abuse.

If you are an abuse victim, or are the witness to an incident of abuse, contact the National Domestic Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or TTY 1-800-787-3224 immediately.

Together we can stop this growing trend!

Tags: Domestic, Male, Victim, Victims, Violence

Male Victims of Domestic Violence – When HE is the Victim

There are many programs for female victims of domestic violence too numerous to mention – and that’s a good thing. But what happens when the MALE is the victim of domestic violence? Are we as a society quick to intervene, do we show compassion for the male victim, or do we simply look the other way?

Mainstream media and cheesy tabloids exploded with the news. A physical altercation left singer Rihanna bruised, allegedly by her equally-popular, then-boyfriend, Chris Brown.

The news traveled far and fast. People everywhere were furious and even the hip-hop world spoke out on the alleged assault. Talk shows dedicated entire episodes on the topic of violence against women and rightly so.

For a certainty, the subject of domestic violence (DV) is no longer taboo. As recently as the early 1990’s, the topic was only spoken of in smaller, more intimate circles. There were whispers in the dark and for the most part, people – including the victims’ family members – turned a blind eye.

While the outrage toward domestic violence is most appropriate, we often view the victims as our mother, sister, daughter or other female acquaintance.

But what happens when the male is the victim of domestic violence? While there are hundreds of human service programs to aid female victims, most male victims of domestic violence are shown no compassion, and are, quite frankly, forgotten. What’s worse: many people aren’t even aware such brutality exists. And yet, of the 400,000 annually-reported incidents of domestic violence, about 40 percent include male victims of domestic violence, abused either by their male partners, their wives or their girlfriends.

Yes, domestic violence seems to be an equal opportunity plague in our society.

The Silent Plague

“Lee” is one such victim. But to hear him tell it the relationship is not a “domestic violence” issue. Lee says, “As a straight man, you don’t want to believe you’re the ‘victim’ of anything – let alone domestic violence. It’s not a macho image.”

Like female victims, male victims of domestic violence are often themselves misled. For example, Lee goes on to say that the problems he experiences with his Baby-Mama is “normal relationship” drama. He says this just after telling me that Baby-Mama threatens to take his children away; has appeared (uninvited) at his place of employment on several occasions; and at one point broke out his car windshield. Lee has also been physically abused at the hands of his Baby-Mama.

Lee’s outlook on domestic violence is all too common. While society would view a male stalker as an obvious threat, a female stalker seems less threatening. But the numbers don’t support that view.

Statically speaking, over 370,000 men are stalked annually in the Unites States. Of that number, 30 percent of stalkers are intimate partners. Yet, only 10 percent of male victims of domestic violence seek a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order from the courts.

Lee explains why he never sought a PFA. “As a Black man, I have been the object of racism by the police. I don’t trust them, so why would I call them if I’m in need of help? And…she is the mother of my children.”

Racist authority aside, there are also other underlying factors that contribute to the ignorance of the ever-growing trend of domestic violence against males. As one DV counselor put it, “It’s hard enough for women to admit they’re in a dangerous situation. As difficult as it is for women, male victims of domestic violence are three times as likely to overlook a serious domestic violence issue.”

In fact, no one knows the accurate numbers of male victims of domestic violence, since men seldom bring their issues out in the open.

Why Stay?

The reasons men stay in abusive relationships mirror that of female abuse victims: (1) for the children; (2) assuming blame for the abuse; (3) dependency on the abuser.

For the Children – Like many female victims of domestic violence, male victims of domestic violence often stay in the relationship to protect their children from the abuser. Often the male victim feels that the object of the abuser’s rage might be directed toward the children if he did not reside in the home, or that the children might be used against him. As in Lee’s case, the thought of never seeing his children haunted him. He decided to stay. Yes, Lee yet remains a statistic, one of hundreds of thousands of male victims of domestic violence.

Assuming Blame – Again, like their female counterparts, many male victims of domestic violence assume ‘they deserve what they get.’ While the truth is far from the mantra, the psychological burden often takes its toll on the victim until there is no more fight left. Male victims of domestic violence simply give up and resort themselves to a life of victimization through emotional, mental or physical abuse.

Dependency on the Abuser for Survival – In many circumstances, male victims of domestic violence are dependent on their abuser, either mentally, emotionally or financially. This scenario leaves the male victim feeling worthless, depressed or anxious, as he relies on the very person who harms him to provide his everyday needs for survival.

What can WE Do?

“Our society must view violence as just that – violent behavior. It doesn’t matter who the abuser might be. We [society as a whole] need to report abuse whenever we witness it,” explains the aforementioned DV counselor.

Whereas society is often quick to dial 9-1-1 when we witness an assault on a woman, we often look in the opposite direction when the victim is a man.

“I have clients that feel they have no way out because they don’t have the same support system that a woman might have. Most male victims of domestic violence would never call their homeboys to tell them they got a black eye from their partner. The thought of being ridiculed is greater than the affects of the abuse,” says the counselor. “Often society thinks male victims of domestic violence should simply ‘man-up’!”

This type of ignorance often comes at a much heavier price. When we neglect to reveal incidents of domestic violence, the ones who suffer most are the children raised in homes where abuse is taking place. Studies show that children who witness abused relationships have a likely chance of growing up to be either a victim or an abuser.

If we as a society don’t soon step up to the plate, the ongoing trend of violence in our communities will continue. In short, whether an abuse victim is a man or woman, abuse is still abuse.

If you are an abuse victim, or are the witness to an incident of abuse, contact the National Domestic Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or TTY 1-800-787-3224 immediately.

Together we can stop this growing trend!

Tags: Domestic, Male, Victim, Victims, Violence

Obama Moves to Grant Political Asylum to Women Who Suffer Domestic Abuse

The Obama administration has moved to grant political asylum to foreign women who suffer severe physical or sexual abuse from which they are unable to escape because it is part of the culture of their own countries.

The decision, made evident in a court case involving a battered women from Mexico, ends years of dispute over the issue which saw the Bush administration stall moves toward recognising domestic violence as legitimate grounds for asylum made during Bill Clinton’s tenure.

The department of homeland security has told an immigration court that it regards the woman, identified only as 42-year-old LR, as potentially having grounds to apply for political asylum because she feared she would be murdered by her common-law husband who repeatedly raped her at gunpoint and tried to burn her alive when he discovered she was pregnant.

Karen Musalo, a lawyer and director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California who is representing a second woman involved in a similar asylum case, said that the move is a significant shift in policy that opens the way for physically and sexually abused women to seek the same protection that those fleeing female genital mutilation are already offered.

“There has been so much controversy and back and forth on this over many years. This finally opens the door to these women to seek protection,” she said.

But women who apply for asylum will still face significant obstacles.

“These are not easy cases to prove,” said Musalo. “LR must prove that in Mexico violence against women is pervasive and that there is a societal perception that this is acceptable. Then she has to prove that the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect her, and on top of that she has to show that there is nowhere in Mexico where she can be safe from her abusers.”

LR stands a good chance of meeting the criteria. According to court papers, her husband, who seduced her when he was her physical education teacher at school, forced her to have sex by holding a gun or machete to her head. He broke her nose on one occasion and, when he discovered she was pregnant, doused her bed with kerosene as she was sleeping and set it alight.

But when she reported the assaults to the police they dismissed them as a “private matter”. A judge she appealed to for help attempted to seduce her.

“In Mexico, men believe they have a right to abuse their women because they are like a possession,” LR said in the court submission.

The struggle to have domestic violence categorised as grounds for asylum has long centred on another women, Rody Alvarado from Guatemala, who has been represented by Musalo.

For many years, the US government said battered women did not qualify because they could not show persecution on specific grounds such as race or political opinion. That position was eroded in 1996 in a key ruling over female genital mutilation.

Until then the courts held that the women were victims of cultural oppression and that was not grounds for asylum because they were not members of a persecuted group under US law.

“The harm that women suffer is often a harm that is a cultural norm or accepted within a culture or required by the religion and so some adjudicators had taken the position that can’t be persecution as required by refugee law because it’s a cultural or religious requirement,” said Musalo. “Female genital cutting fell in to that category but the board of immigration said it doesn’t matter that it’s a cultural rite – if it’s a violation of human rights and objectively an egregious harm, it’s persecution.”

In the wake of the 1996 decision, Alvarado sought asylum to escape repeated severe beatings by her husband. Her case has been at the center of a tangled and politicized dispute over the legitimacy of claims for protection from physical abuse.

An immigration court granted Alvarado asylum based on the earlier decision on female genital mutilation. An appeal court reversed the decision.

Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, overturned the appeal court decision but shortly after that George Bush came to power and stalled the case which remains unresolved.

Musalo says the change in the department of homeland security’s position means Alvarado’s case is finally likely to be addressed.

Opposition to admitting battered women has in part come from politicians who argue that it will open the floodgates. Musalo said similar objections were made over the admission of women fleeing female genital mutilation.

“A lot of people who were opposed to a grant of asylum said millions of women are subject to female genital cutting a year and if we establish a precedent that this is a basis for asylum these millions of women are going to arrive in the US,” she said.

But, she said, there was not significant increase in claims. More than 29,000 people won asylum in the US last year on a variety of grounds.

Tags: Abuse, Asylum, Domestic, Grant, Moves, Obama, Political, Suffer, Women

Domestic Wind Generators Help Reduce Energy Bills & Carbon Footprint

Almost anyone can benefit from the Feed-in Tariffs (also known as Clean Energy Cashback) including homeowners, tenants, businesses, schools and farms based in England, Scotland or Wales. To qualify for the Feed-in Tariffs, the renewable energy equipment you install must be approved by the Government’s Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) and the installer must also have MCS accreditation.

There are plenty of benefits of home wind electricity generation:
You are harnessing a plentiful energy source as in the UK we have 40% of Europe’s total wind energy.
You will be cutting your carbon footprint! Wind electricity is green, renewable energy and doesn’t release any harmful carbon dioxide or other pollutants.
You will cut your electricity bills out totally if you are in the right spot. Wind is free, so once you’ve paid for the initial installation your electricity costs will be reduced.
You can even store electricity for a calm day with no wind because you can store excess electricity in batteries and use it when there is no wind – or you can sell it to the National Grid and make money while helping everyone go green.

If you’re asking yourself if domestic wind electricity generation is suitable for your home, there are a few key questions to consider:
Do you have any large obstacles like buildings, trees or hills near your home? Small domestic wind turbines work best in exposed locations, without the kind of air turbulence caused by obstacles.
Is your home in a windy area already? To be effective you need an average windspeed of no less than 5m/s. Solar PV panels are an alternative to domestic wind generation.

The Government has made the Feed-in Tariff payments tax exempt for householders, so making them even more attractive. Plus, you will be reducing your carbon footprint.

The Government has had to introduce the Feed-in Tariffs in order to meet their target of generating 15% of our electricity in the UK from renewable sources by 2020. The aim of the scheme is to encourage people to install a renewable electricity system, such as Solar PV Panels or Wind Turbines, to generate electricity from renewable sources.

Tags: Bills, Carbon, Domestic, Energy, Footprint, Generators, Help, Reduce, Wind

Domestic Warfare

It wasn’t much more than a week ago that the Tories announced an end to their war against single parents. This was tactical rather than practical, I believe, since it is customary for the end of a war to be announced by its winner. The Tories must have hoped thereby to persuade us that they had won. Whereas in fact, by any measurable scale, single parents must have won, since it’s statistically impossible in this country to be less popular than the Conservative party.

Principle carers (as lone parents are so non-judgmentally known by the child support agency) must have thought they would be given a short while to regroup and maybe hand out a few medals, but no, a new war has been launched almost immediately, this time by the government itself. Poor carers, they must feel like Poland.

In an effort to make things “fairer and faster”, the CSA has announced a new scale to calculate the financial input of the non-resident parent. The formula, which was meant to be introduced in April but will not take effect until some time next year, requires the absent parent to pay 15% of his or her income for one child, 20% for two and 25% for three. This amounts to a cut in payments to single parents of up to 19%, but does not affect the ones who live on benefits. Therefore, it is effectively a penalty on being a single parent with a job, which is a little bit rich coming from a government that spent so much of its first term trying to get single parents back to work.

The CSA’s position is that the system needs to be changed, because it is unworkable at the moment. It has some good evidence to support this claim – in August, it transpired that the agency had written off £2bn worth of debt, and considered a further £150m “uncollectable”.

Sir John Bourne, the auditor general, estimated in July that 81% of the CSA’s maintenance assessments were wrong. In other words, this is the most comprehensively rubbish finance collection agency this country has ever seen. If a lone parent failed at its quotidian duties this woefully, it would have its children taken away.

So, the quest for simplification and greater efficiency is understandable, but when the end result is to round down the amount owed to the main carer, you can’t help thinking that behind this fiasco there’s prejudice at work.

Try to imagine what would happen if the Inland Revenue got most people’s tax assessments wrong, wrote off vast quantities of its debts because it couldn’t be bothered to chase them and then said “sod it, let’s charge them all a bit less, and see if that works”. Well, it would make the whole business of being taxed a lot more fun, and we wouldn’t be able to afford a war against Iraq, but on the downside, society would disintegrate and we would all get cholera.

The decision is absolutely obscure; it doesn’t benefit the working single parent, and ultimately it cannot benefit the government. If the employed are to be penalised, those on very low incomes will necessarily be forced out of work and back on the dole. The only people gaining from this are the absent parents, who are in effect being rewarded for the merry £2bn dance they’ve led the CSA on since its inception nine years ago.

Of course, this is infinitely worse than the now-defunct Tory war – it doesn’t make any difference to anyone whether or not the opposition party thinks they got pregnant just to get a council flat. If anything, the act of annoying Norman Tebbit might add to your overall quality of life.

The government scheme, on the other hand, has important and damaging financial ramifications. But the thinking behind New Labour and Old Tory is the same – single parents are quite simply worth less than other groups. They are worth less than dual parents, they are worth less than the childless and – most ridiculously – they are worth less than absent parents. Their payments are chased less tenaciously than bloody parking fines, they were harried back to work with the most patronising of poster campaigns and now they are penalised for being in work.

The very people who demonstrate their sense of social responsibility most assiduously are the ones who are treated with least respect by their society. Conceivably, this all stems from a moral agenda that still puts some crazy value on marital respectability, even though the only people who really stay married for life these days are politicians themselves, and that’s just because they have such, ahem, fun-packed professional lives.

Possibly, there is a misogynist undertone here since, though we all strive with modern even-handedness not to group resident and absent parents by gender, the former are still mainly women. I wonder, though, whether it isn’t all a bit more pragmatic than that – lone parents are notoriously time-poor individuals, being so busy with kids and whatnot. If you’re going to victimise anyone, you may as well victimise the ones who don’t have time to fight back.

Tags: Domestic, Warfare

Chirac Seizes the Moment on Deal in Bid to Put Domestic Troubles Behind Him

Jacques Chirac’s “annus horribilis”, which has seen the most severe riots in France for a generation, could be about to end on a positive note. As Britain signalled a change of tack on its £3.2bn EU budget rebate, French ministers held a series of meetings last night to see whether they could sign up to a deal at this month’s European summit.

Weeks after declaring that Europe faces a “make or break” chance to reform its hidebound economies, Downing Street backed away last night from demanding a cut in farm subsidies as the price for reforming Britain’s EU rebate.

This demand, outlined with great passion by Tony Blair at the last European summit in June, prompted one of the most bitter rows between the two leaders. President Chirac rejected it out of hand, declaring that spending on agriculture was “modern”.

Mr Chirac, who has struggled to assert his authority since French voters rejected the EU constitution in May, is likely to congratulate himself for trapping Britain over the past three years. Mr Blair has struggled to push his rebate-for-farm subsidies reform message since Mr Chirac announced in 2002 that he had agreed with Gerhard Schröder to fix farm subsidies until 2013.

Enraged by being bounced into a deal, Mr Blair said that farm subsidies should be set during the formal negotiations for the 2007-13 budget which will take place at next month’s summit.

Mr Chirac replied that if Mr Blair wanted to achieve one of the main objectives of British foreign policy – the enlargement of the EU eastwards in 2004 – he would have to sign up.

Mr Blair reluctantly went along with the deal, insisting that there was still a chance to open up farm subsidies.

President Chirac showed his confidence at an EU summit in March this year when he demanded an end to the “cheque Britannique” hours after Britain had helped him out by agreeing to water down a hated EU measure, known as the “services directive”, which fuelled the no camp in the French referendum campaign and which claimed that it would lead to a flood of cheap Polish plumbers into France.

Britain is likely to point out that President Chirac has not achieved a complete victory. Downing Street will point out that – if the deal is accepted at next month’s EU summit – the rebate will still stay in place to cover crucial areas of EU spending, most notably farm subsidies.

Mr Blair is also likely to argue that the the heart of the deal still contains his central principle – that the EU budget should be fair. The prime minister is understood to have asked treasury officials, who are poring over the budget figures, to ensure that Britain ends up paying about the same amount as France, which has a similar sized population.

This has led to fiendishly complicated work which focuses on exempting spending on the EU’s new member states from the rebate calculations. If left untouched the rebate would increase dramatically as the overall budget increases to accommodate the new recruits.

“What we have always said is that the budget should be fair,” one British source said. “It was not fair that, under the old budget, we paid two and a half times what the French paid even with the rebate. So too, is it unfair that we should become the second lowest net contributor if nothing changes.”

Tags: Behind, Chirac, Deal, Domestic, Moment, Seizes, troubles