Monday, November 4, 2013
manessmorrison2@yahoo.com

News clips of the day:


Centrist or a conservative? Christie faces fork in the road for 2016 – NBC

By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News
Don’t expect Chris Christie to glide toward 2016 without challenges, even if he achieves the rare accomplishment of winning a second term as the Republican governor of deep-blue New Jersey in Tuesday's election against Democratic nominee Barbara Buono.
As he pivots toward a possible bid for the presidency, Christie will have to decide: Should he firmly embrace the relatively-centrist persona he worked so hard to burnish during his first term, or move toward the right in hopes of winning over conservative activists who weigh heavily upon presidential nominating contests?
At first glance, Christie’s potential as a national figure appears endless. He boasts a high profile in the national media and can draw on the lucrative New York-area fundraising base. Perhaps most importantly, if his re-election on Tuesday goes mostly as polls have predicted, Christie will be able to tout a track record of winning in a Democratic state and with independent, women and minority voters – important blocs among which Republican presidential nominees have struggled in recent cycles.

Yet Christie’s willingness to sometimes defy fellow Republicans and work with Democrats – most notably President Barack Obama in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy – has prompted misgivings among conservatives whom Christie must court to have any hope of snagging the GOP nomination in 2016.

“No Republican will be successful in the Northeast if they’re not good at outreach to groups that aren’t traditional Republicans. And Chris Christie is excellent at it – he’s so excellent at it that Republicans don’t trust him,” said Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary to President George W. Bush.
“If Chris Christie wants to run for president it’s his job to take very impressive results and make his case,” Fleischer added.
Make no mistake: Christie is on relatively strong footing with the GOP, and its core conservative members. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans view him positively, according to last week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, versus 19 percent who see the New Jersey governor negatively; 31 percent of self-described conservatives (who generally make up the core of the GOP) see Christie positively, 18 percent negatively.
Still, conservatives appear more enamored with Republicans willing to force confrontation with Democrats and Obama, not Republicans who are willing to compromise. According to the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, 39 percent of Republicans see firebrand Texas Sen. Ted Cruz positively, while 14 percent see him negatively; conservatives favor Cruz, 40 percent to 11 percent.
The question for Christie is whether he feels the need to mimic the hard-charging style of Cruz and other popular conservatives, or wage an unapologetic defense of his style of governance to sometimes-unforgiving Republican primary voters.
“I think he may have a tough time in Iowa and South Carolina if he continues to move in this much more moderate direction,” said Sarah Sanders, who helped guide her father Mike Huckabee’s campaign to victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, where social conservatives reign supreme.
“I think he's a force to be reckoned with,” she said. “But he hasn't really been vetted yet on a national stage, and I don't think the jury’s in on him yet.”
For conservatives, Christie’s embrace of Obama during Sandy and subsequent chastising of fellow Republicans in Congress for slowing relief spending is a source of soreness. Social conservatives fret over the governor’s decision to sign legislation to outlaw therapy for gay teenagers intended to change their sexual orientation. Christie spoke out against a court ruling effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey, but conservatives wish he’d fought the decision more doggedly.

“No Republican will be successful in the Northeast if they’re not good at outreach to groups that aren’t traditional Republicans. And Chris Christie is excellent at it – he’s so excellent at it that Republicans don’t trust him,” said Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary to President George W. Bush.
“If Chris Christie wants to run for president it’s his job to take very impressive results and make his case,” Fleischer added.

Make no mistake: Christie is on relatively strong footing with the GOP, and its core conservative members. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans view him positively, according to last week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, versus 19 percent who see the New Jersey governor negatively; 31 percent of self-described conservatives (who generally make up the core of the GOP) see Christie positively, 18 percent negatively.
Still, conservatives appear more enamored with Republicans willing to force confrontation with Democrats and Obama, not Republicans who are willing to compromise. According to the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, 39 percent of Republicans see firebrand Texas Sen. Ted Cruz positively, while 14 percent see him negatively; conservatives favor Cruz, 40 percent to 11 percent.
The question for Christie is whether he feels the need to mimic the hard-charging style of Cruz and other popular conservatives, or wage an unapologetic defense of his style of governance to sometimes-unforgiving Republican primary voters.

“I think he may have a tough time in Iowa and South Carolina if he continues to move in this much more moderate direction,” said Sarah Sanders, who helped guide her father Mike Huckabee’s campaign to victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, where social conservatives reign supreme.
“I think he's a force to be reckoned with,” she said. “But he hasn't really been vetted yet on a national stage, and I don't think the jury’s in on him yet.”
For conservatives, Christie’s embrace of Obama during Sandy and subsequent chastising of fellow Republicans in Congress for slowing relief spending is a source of soreness. Social conservatives fret over the governor’s decision to sign legislation to outlaw therapy for gay teenagers intended to change their sexual orientation. Christie spoke out against a court ruling effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey, but conservatives wish he’d fought the decision more doggedly.

“There’s a lot of Gov. Christie that I really like, but there are parts where he’s given me reason for pause,” said Bob Vander Plaats, a possible 2014 Senate candidate who heads Iowa’s socially conservative Family Leader. Referencing the same-sex marriage issue, he asked: “The fact is, why don’t you challenge the court?”
“The secret sauce is that he’s like everybody’s next-door neighbor,” Katon Dawson, a fixture of South Carolina Republican politics, said of Christie. But he warned that the governor’s pugnacious New Jersey style could wear thin on voters outside of the Northeast. “Will they like him in South Carolina? The jury’s out on that.”

Myriad factors could shape the manner in which Christie might mount a bid for the GOP nomination. Christie might find ample space to run as an electable centrist if a variety of hard-charging conservatives or Tea Party types enter the race. And he could just as easily skip or participate lightly in Iowa and South Carolina – both early nominating contests dominated by conservatives.

Such a strategy could enable Christie to run a campaign more consistent with the persona he’s cultivated during his first term as governor.
“Mostly, he’s willing to work with people. And that’s the problem with Washington: there are too many Republicans and too many Democrats who don’t want to be seen with anybody else on the other side,” said Henry Barbour, a Republican National Committee member from Mississippi. “I’m a member of the club who thinks that somebody who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is your ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”
Christie also has a chance – like many other Republican governors – to distance himself from congressional Republicans’ deteriorating popularity come 2016.


Christie appeals to me a great deal, like Senator McCain, because he is not a rabid rightist and because he follows his own thinking on issues as they come up. In a president we need a candidate who will govern the whole country and not just his particular party, especially an extreme wing of the party.

There is already too much divisiveness with the present population of the House and Senate to the point that they can't do their job. That problem is being blamed for the government shutdown last month by Senator McCain, though there was a news report stating that the shutdown was the enactment of a plan made in July of last year among radical conservatives to use a shutdown as a tool to force Obama's health care plan down. It didn't work, and we can't afford these shutdowns. They are harmful and they make the US look like fools.

I checked Wikipedia and there have been about a dozen shutdowns. It has become a standard ploy to force through unpopular legislation – we need rules specifically banning the practice of attaching “poison pill” legislation to the budget, causing it not to be passed in time to avoid a shutdown. The quotations below on shutdowns is from Wikipedia, telling the legal background of the problem. Under the heading “Government Shutdown In the US,” Wikipedia summarizes the causes behind all of the government shutdowns in history. The shutdowns only began in 1976. Most have involved conservative social issues which were attached to the budget, making it a political war zone. The Wikipedia article is suggested reading. Excerpts are below.


“In U.S. politics, a government shutdown is the name for the process the Executive Branch must enter into, when the Congress creates a "funding gap" by choosing not to or failing to pass legislation funding government operations and agencies.”


“Since 1976, when the United States budget process was revised by the Budget Act of 1974[14] the United States Federal Government has had funding gaps on 18 occasions:[15][16][17] Funding gaps did not lead to government shutdowns prior to 1980 when President Carter requested opinions from Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti on funding gaps and the Anti-Deficiency Act. His first opinion said that all government work must stop if Congress does not agree to pay for it. He later issued a second opinion that allowed essential government services to continue in the absence of a spending bill.[18][19]”


“The Antideficiency Act (ADA), Pub.L. 97–258, 96 Stat. 923, is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. The law was initially enacted in 1884, with major amendments occurring in 1950 (64 Stat. 765) and 1982 (96 Stat. 923). It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341. The ADA prohibits the federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract. This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.
The Antideficiency Act has evolved over time in response to various abuses. The earliest version of the legislation was enacted in 1870 (16 Stat. 251), after the Civil War, to end the executive branch's long history of creating coercive deficiencies. Many agencies, particularly the military, would intentionally run out of money, obligating Congress to provide additional funds to avoid breaching contracts. Some went as far as to spend their entire budget in the first few months of the fiscal year, funding the rest of the year after the fact with additional appropriations from Congress.[1][2”


I would like to read the Attorney General's opinion which made, or allowed, this change in the behavior of Congress. Maybe we need to work on this law. We also need a rule that prohibits Congress or the Senate from appending any extraneous bills to a budget, thus causing the funding not to be approved. That would prevent one party from hijacking the proceedings of enacting legislation in order to facilitate their pet projects, and it would make the flow of work through the process smoother.




Why a 15-minute phone call threatens Saudi Arabia's decades-old alliance with US – NBC

By Lubna Hussain and Alexander Smith, NBC News
News analysis
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The historic 15-minute phone call between President Barack Obama and Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani may have cost the U.S. one of its key friends in the Middle East.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been allies for some 80 years, with the U.S. offering military protection to the world’s second-biggest oil producer.
But as relations warm between Tehran and Washington, Saudi Arabia last month signaled that it will "shift away from the U.S.," giving Secretary of State John Kerry plenty to discuss with King Abdullah when they meet on Monday.
Riyadh is deeply skeptical of Iran's charm offensive and frustrated by an alleged lack of consultation over Washington's changing stance toward a country once branded as a member of the so-called "axis of evil."

Only five years ago, the Saudis urged the U.S. to strike Iran -- which is situated just across the Persian Gulf from the kingdom. The Saudi government fears that the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon would seriously threaten its national security.
The extent of Saudi frustration at being left out in the cold by the U.S. became apparent last month when it rejected a seat on the United Nations Security Council. It was the first country to do so, and the move surprised even its own diplomats who had been preparing for the role for years.
Outwardly, Saudi Arabia directed its anger at the U.N., criticizing its "double standards" in failing to resolve the crisis in Syria and long-running tensions between Israel and Palestine.

But the autocratic monarchy’s frustration is primarily with the U.S. after what it sees as a series of snubs, a source with knowledge of Saudi foreign policy told NBC News.
"At the end of the day we know what friendship is all about," the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "But if diplomacy starts with your friends and you don’t consult them then that is obviously going to give rise to suspicion."
Though the two countries have been allies since the 1930s, the threatened "shift" in relations with the U.S. follows decades of pressure from the Saudi public to distance their country from the superpower.
Many citizens feel aggrieved by perceived White House failures to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And American foreign policy in the region, particularly when it comes to the interventions in Iraq in 1990 and 2003, is seen by many as disastrous.

But those sticking points were previously not enough for the Saudi government to act against its ally.
The U.S. agreement with Russia not to strike Syrian President Bashar Assad in response to August's alleged chemical weapons attack, but instead to remove his chemical weapons arsenal, also angered Riyadh.
Iran has traditionally backed Assad's regime, while Saudi Arabia has funded Syria's predominantly Sunni opposition.
“The most important thing between allies is that they strategize together before declaring any decisions,” the source told NBC News. “The Kerry-Lavrov agreement has clearly shown that the Americans want to reshape the Middle East without consulting us. You can’t just forego strategic alliances like that and claim to be allies without any form of consultation.”
The Saudi administration felt further shunned when the U.S. decided to reach out to Iran following the election of Rouhani, who has seemingly adopted a more moderate agenda than his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a September interview with NBC News' Ann Curry, Rouhani said Iran would never develop nuclear weapons and insisted that his country was not "looking for war."
Despite Tehran's insistence that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, Saudi Arabia has long harbored concerns. According to a diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks, King Abdullah urged the U.S. to “cut off the head of the snake” and strike Tehran in 2008. 
Sadayuki Mikami / AP, file
Two U.S. Marines man a post at their base in eastern Saudi Arabia in January 1990, while the smoke from an oil refinery billows into the desert sky on the horizon. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been allies for eight decades.
Like Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described Rouhani a "wolf in sheep’s clothing," Saudi Arabia isn't convinced by Tehran's overtures.
Saudi Arabia is trying to express their disappointment by flying solo -- expressed in the historic rebuttal of the U.N. seat.
Some Saudi citizens feel the change in tone is overdue.
“Well it’s about time that we distanced ourselves from the U.S.,” a Saudi businesswoman told NBC News, speaking on condition of anonymity. “When you rear a pet snake, the least that you can expect is that you will eventually be bitten. I just don’t understand why we had allowed ourselves to become so dependent."
The U.S. has been quick to try to tackle the sudden deterioration of relations.
Speaking at the U.S. embassy in Riyadhi, Secretary of State John Kerry says the United States and Saudi Arabia were working together on the Middle East peace process.
Speaking at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh before meeting with King Abdullah on Monday, Kerry described the Saudis as "the senior players in the Arab world."

He added: "Egypt is in transition, so the Saudi role is more important. They can influence a lot of things we care about.... we are working together on Middle East peace, on Syria, on Iran." 
Kerry is visiting Riyadh as part of a nine-day tour of the Middle East.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal also hosted Kerry at his private residence in Paris on Oct. 21.
A senior State Department official told Reuters that Kerry had discussed with al-Faisal the advantages of being on the U.N. Security Council, while making it clear that "it is Saudi Arabia's decision to make."
Speaking in London on Oct. 22, Kerry said the U.S. and Saudi Arabia "agree on a great deal."
A day later, White House spokesman Jay Carney also acknowledged "disagreements on some issues" with Saudi Arabia but said the "relationship is very important economically and in national security ways."
And on Oct. 24, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told a press briefing that the U.S. has "a very strong relationship with the Saudis and will continue to."

New reports suggest the U.S. decision not to intervene in Syria, coupled with our relationship with Iran has infuriated Saudi Arabia. Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute, and radio show host John Batchelor, discuss whether President Obama unde...
She added: "Sometimes we have disagreements, we do with everyone. That’s why we talk through them, and that’s why we’re trying to get to a place where we can work together on these issues."
Washington's next move is crucial, according to Sir Tom Phillips, associate fellow at think tank Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa program.
"[Saudi Arabia] will be looking to see if the West is dealing with the [Syrian] chemical weapons for its own benefit, or for the benefit of regional stability," he said. "And then of course they will be watching the Iran agenda very closely to see if there is going to be a deal with Iran and whether anything will be given away."

But asked if the rift could have serious long-term implications, Sir Tom said: "I don’t think so. Who is Saudi Arabia going to turn to? China and Asia are a major market for them, but you would have to ask what would be the American response? It probably wouldn't get to that."
Shashank Joshi, a research fellow at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, added: "The Saudi Arabians do not have enough leverage to prevent all these things they fear, so they have to swallow what the Americans give them."
He said that the mutually beneficial relationship of U.S. military protection and Saudi oil production is too valuable to be threatened by diplomatic differences.
"It is much less serious than Saudi Arabia would like us to believe."


We need to have good relations with as many countries in the Middle East as possible, but it is obviously tricky to manage that without offending others. The whole conflict between Israel and Palestine is resented by all the Arab peoples, and the US will never turn against Israel, even if Israel is not pursuing sincere attempts at peace negotiations with Palestine. Now our tentative approach toward Iran, which Saudi Arabia doesn't trust, has caused this apparent jealousy – calling it a snub. It was probably a mistake, not a snub. According to this article, the result probably won't be fatal to our relationship with Saudi Arabia due to the strength of our mutual interests. I'm sure Obama and Kerry will try to mend the relationship, keeping the balance in the Middle East. We need them as our allies.




'Big, striking horror:' US military doctors allowed torture of detainees, new study claims
Bill Briggs NBC News
U.S. military doctors designed, enabled and engaged in the torture of suspected terrorists held at American detention centers during the past decade, violating globally recognized ethics and medical principles that bar physicians from inflicting harm, according to a study released Monday.
The medical personnel involved — physicians, psychiatrists and psychologists who work in military branches or for U.S. intelligence agencies — allowed “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment” of prisoners while acting at the direction of military leaders under both the Bush and Obama administrations, reports a 19-member independent task force of doctors, lawyers and ethics experts.
“This is a big, big striking horror,” said Dr. Gerald Thomson, professor of medicine emeritus at Columbia University and a member of the task force. The panel is supported by the Institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP), a health care policy think tank based at Columbia that identifies itself as nonprofit and nonpartisan.
“This covenant between society and medicine has been around for a long, long time — patient first, community first, society first, not national security, necessarily,” Thomson said. “If we just ignore this and satisfy ourselves with the (thought that), ‘Well, they were trying to protect us,’ when it does happen again we’ll all be complicit in that.”
A spokesman for the Department of Defense, Lt. Col. J. Todd Breasseale, reviewed the allegations and called them “wholly absurd.”
“It’s worth noting that other than the habeas counsel (pro-bono lawyers for detainees at held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba) who have some very specific motivations in their scorched earth approach to zealously representing their clients, not one of the (task force) claimants have had actual access to the detainees, their medical records, or the procedures” used by the Joint Task Force (JTF) — the U.S. military command at Guantanamo Bay, Breasseale said.
“The health care providers at the JTF who routinely provide not only better medical care than any of these detainees have ever known, but care on par with the very best of the global medical profession, are consummate professionals working under terrifically stressful conditions, far from home and their families, and with patients who have been extraordinarily violent,” Breasseale added.
The task force of medical ethicists spent two years reviewing public records on the U.S. military’s treatment of combat detainees at Guantanamo Bay as well as those at prisons on American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents informing their findings include, among other items, recently published accounts of force-feeding hunger-striking detainees at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba, a 2008 Senate report on the handling of terrorists in custody, and a Red Cross investigation of Central Intelligence Agency interrogation tactics that ultimately was leaked to the New York Times. 
The IMAP panel asserts that the DOD and CIA involved their doctors and psychologists in “abusive interrogation” techniques, including “consulting on conditions of confinement to increase the disorientation and anxiety of detainees.” The study authors couldn't determine how many military doctors were involved in what they deemed unfit treatment of prisoners.
In one instance, the CIA contracted with a psychologist who earlier had been part of the military's in-house program to train U.S. troops to withstand abusive detention and torture. The agency and the psychologist collaborated to use those same training techniques to design "enhanced interrogation" methods for suspected terrorists — tactics meant to "induce hopelessness" and to “psychologically ‘dislocate’ the detainee, maximize his feeling of vulnerability, and reduce or eliminate his will to resist" as part of efforts to extract intelligence secrets, the task force wrote. 
These strategies, the medical ethicists added, included sensory deprivation, isolation, and forcing detainees into "stress positions for long periods of time."
The DOD and CIA also used medical information obtained by doctors from the detainees to later interrogate those detainees, the task force claims, also alleging that military doctors participated in the force-feeding of hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of detainees at the prison used a hunger strike in March to protest their detention. Some still are not eating. Human rights advocates have decried the way detainees are force fed — a tube is inserted into the nose of a chair-restrained detainee and food is then pushed through that hose and into the body. 
"It’s still going on, and you have evidence of that with the (recent) hunger strikes," Thomson said. "What really needs to happen here has not yet happened, in our view. That is, to have rules in detention centers — regulations on caring for (detainees) that are in line with accepted, medical-ethical standards, so that when the (military) physicians are directed to do this or that, (their actions) are not out of line in terms of medical ethics."
But one medical ethicist who has closely studied the tales of water-boarding, force-feeding and larger accusations of detainee torturing at American military facilities is not convinced, he said, that the doctors were simply following orders. 
The presence or the possible involvement of physicians and psychologists during the interrogations of suspected terrorists pulls medicine into a morally gray zone, far from the black-and-white divide that some experts place on the issue, said Arthur Caplan, head of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center and a frequent NBC News contributor. 
"If you join the CIA as a physician or if you work to monitor water-boarding (as a doctor), you work as part of a group that believes it to be morally correct. That belief could be distorted," Caplan said. "But I don’t believe that people go to work every day and say: ‘I’m doing something terrible. I shouldn’t be doing it. But I guess I’ll manage to do it anyway.’ 
"What I’ve seen over the years is that people (doctors) who don’t want to do that, don’t. They find ways to avoid it, get out of it, or get reassigned," Caplan added. "But for someone who does it, that doctor’s impulse may be to say: 'I want to fight terrorism. I want to get information that protects the American people.' They think they’re doing the right thing."


Did Obama know about this? I notice DOD spokesman Col. Todd Breasseale has denied the allegations, so they are going to fight it. I'll collect more articles about it as they come out.





1,500 works of art looted by Nazis recovered in Munich, magazine reports – NBC

By Daniel Arkin, Staff Writer, NBC News
A trove of 1,500 works of art plundered by the Nazis has been discovered in Munich, according to a German news magazine report — a collection that, if confirmed, ranks among the most significant artistic finds of the postwar era.
The cache of modernist masterpieces looted in the 1930s and 1940s is believed to include priceless works by Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee and Marc Chagall, the German news magazine Focus reported. Nearly all the recovered pieces were considered lost — until now.
German artist Max Beckman's "Lion Tamer", a 1930 gouache and pastel work on paper was recently sold by  Cornelius Gurlitt – the reclusive son of Hildebrandt Gurlitt, the art dealer who in the run-up to the Second World War had been in charge of gathering up the so-called "degenerate art" for the Nazis.
The ill-gotten artworks, which would have been deemed "degenerate art" and confiscated from Jewish collectors by the Nazi regime, eventually made their way to a German art collector, Hildebrand Gurlitt, according to the Focus report.
When Gurlitt died, his son Cornelius inherited the spoils — apparently unaware of the art's origins.
Authorities were drawn to 80-year-old Cornelius Gurlitt in 2010 after an inquiry into his finances, Focus reported. Additional police probes led to a raid on Gurlitt's residence in 2011.
That's when authorities found a massive collection of pieces by some of the world's most celebrated and revered artistic giants.
Related: 474-year-old painting stolen by Nazis given to owner's heirs
The younger Gurlitt had apparently kept the works hidden in darkened rooms, selling a painting every now and then when he needed a cash infusion, Focus reported.
International warrants were out for at least 200 of the prized works, according to Focus, adding that the recovered collection is being stored in a secure warehouse in Munich for the time being.
Although the artworks were found in 2011, Germans customs officials may have been keeping mum on their discovery in the intervening years due to the diplomatic and legal complications stemming from the loot — particularly claims for restitution from across the globe, according to the Guardian, a British newspaper.


Will they restore the paintings to their owners, if possible? Will the younger Gurlitt be charged with any crimes? Hopefully we will hear more about it later.




American flags burned as 10,000 Iranians protest on US Embassy siege anniversary – NBC
By Ali Arouzi and Alexander Smith, NBC News
TEHRAN -- At least 10,000 Iranians protested outside the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran Monday, burning American flags and effigies of Barack Obama on the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the building.
Annual demonstrations take place at the site, marking the date on which activists stormed the embassy 34 years ago and took 52 staff hostage for 444 days -- an act that severed diplomatic ties with the U.S. for more than three decades.
But this year’s demonstration was larger than usual, fueled by anger among Iranians at President Hassan Rouhani's recent moves to reopen dialogue with the West.
The crowd comprised mainly students and old revolutionaries from 1979, with equal numbers of men and women. It was at least ten times bigger than in previous years

The air was thick with smoke as countless U.S. and Israeli flags went up in flames, accompanied by chants of "death to America" and the waving of anti-U.S. banners.
Reporters were issued with press credentials marked with the phrase "down with U.S.A."

Several protesters told NBC News they were taking part because they did not trust the U.S. and did not want Iran to do a deal with its arch-enemy.
The sentiment follows Rouhani presenting a far more moderate approach to international relations than his predecessor, the hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Rouhani broke the 34-year diplomatic silence between Iran and the U.S. with a 15-minute telephone call to Obama after the U.N. general assembly in September. It followed an exclusive interview with NBC News’ Ann Curry in which Rouhani said: "We are not seeking ... and looking for war with any nations. We are seeking peace and stability among all the nations in the region.”
The Iranian president also wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he declared an end to "the age of blood feuds," adding: "World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities."
This approach has been applauded by many Iranians, but Monday’s protests were not the first occasion Rouhani has been criticized for his perceived warming to the country Iran used to call "the Great Satan."
On his return from the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Rouhani was met with a large crowd of supporters in Tehran. Others, however, booed him and pelted his car with eggs, tomatoes and shoes.
On Sunday, Iran’s most powerful public figure, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave a speech backing the country’s nuclear negotiators. This was an apparent warning to hardliners not to accuse Rouhani of compromising with its old enemy, Reuters reported.
"No one should consider our negotiators as compromisers," Khamenei said, according to the news agency. "They have a difficult mission and no one must weaken an official who is busy with work."
On Saturday, an editorial by conservative newspaper Kayhan warned against trusting the U.S. in current nuclear negotiations, Reuters said. The editorial said there were signs that "the Americans are aiming to trick the Islamic Republic" in the next round of talks this week.


Hassan Rouhani is hoping for warmer relations with the US, along with some Iranians, but apparently there is a strong prejudice against us there, too. We can only keep trying to improve our situation with them; maybe the strength of the regular annual protest this time doesn't accurately reflect overall public opinion there. I wonder how strong Rouhani is?







Report: Incognito made threats, racial remarks to Martin – NBC Sports
Posted by Darin Gantt on November 4, 2013

The Dolphins’ tone yesterday got a little more grave with every passing press release regarding the Jonathan Martin situation.
And now we know why they moved so swiftly from keeping it at arm’s length to suspending guard Richie Incognito for conduct detrimental to the team.
According to Mike Garafolo of FOX Sports, multiple sources said Incognito sent text messages and left voicemails “that are both threatening and racially charged in nature,” and that copies of both have been turned over to the league for its investigation.
That helps explain why a team that said they hadn’t been told of any bullying changed course so swiftly, announcing last night that Incognito was going away for a moment.

They now face a similar challenge to Eagles coach Chip Kelly, who had to finesse wide receiver Riley Cooper back into the locker room after he was caught on video using racial slurs this summer.
After being in the hot center of the fire to begin with, things have cooled, and while all of Cooper’s teammates may not trust him, he’s at least contributing to the workplace without incident.
Whether the Dolphins can make it go away as quickly remains to be seen.


It looks like sports is not free of racial problems. At least the coaches are suspending those players who get caught harassing others.




Obama presses Congress to pass anti-discrimination law in blog post – NBC
By Daniel Arkin, Staff Writer, NBC News
President Barack Obama has called on Congress to pass legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
In a blog post published Sunday evening on the Huffington Post, Obama urged lawmakers to vote yes on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The Senate is expected to have a cloture vote on the bill Monday. 
"In America of all places, people should be judged on the merits: on the contributions they make in their workplaces and communities, and on what Martin Luther King Jr. called 'the content of their character.' That's what ENDA helps us do," Obama writes.
He adds: "When Congress passes it, I will sign it into law, and our nation will be fairer and stronger for generations to come."
Read the full blog post here.
ENDA was last brought to a vote in the Senate in 1996, failing by just a single vote.
It has heavy Democratic support and in July passed a Senate committee with Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mark Kirk of Illinois voting in favor of it.
Recent polling from the Americans for Workplace Opportunity found the overwhelming majority of Americans support a federal law preventing workplace discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
The legislation provides exceptions for religious groups and the military.
ENDA would be the most substantial gay rights law passed by Congress since the repeal in 2010 of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibition on gay people in uniform.


Let's hope this goes through. I notice it does say that there are exceptions for religious groups and the military. I thought the military was already required to accept gays by the Don't Ask Don't Tell rule. I guess they can still decline to accept people if they are known beforehand to be gay?