Friday, March 21, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Scientists Say Our Noses Can Sense at Least a Trillion Scents
Tanya Lewis, LiveScience

There's no mistaking the odor of burning rubber for the fresh smell after a summer rain, but now new research shows the human nose can distinguish among many more odors than once thought.

People often say that humans can distinguish among only 10,000 different odors. But the new findings suggest that the nose can pick up on differences among at least 1 trillion odors.

"We debunk this old, made-up number of 10,000," said Leslie Vosshall, an olfaction researcher at the Rockefeller University in New York and a co-author of the study detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Testing whether people could smell 10,000 different scents or more would be an impossible task. So Vosshall and her colleagues tested a subset of these odors in different combinations.

The researchers created mixtures of 128 different scent molecules. Individually, the molecules gave off odors such as grass or citrus, but when they were combined, the blends smelled unfamiliar. Vosshall's team gave the volunteers three vials of scents — two of one scent along with a third, different scent — and told them to identify the unique odor. The volunteers repeated the process for more than 260 sets of vials.
The researchers counted how often the volunteers correctly identified the different vial, and extrapolated from their findings to estimate how many scents an average person could distinguish out of all possible mixtures. They concluded that humans can smell at least 1 trillion different scents. The actual number may be much higher, because there are more than 128 odor molecules, Vosshall said.

Previous research suggests that young, Caucasian women who are non-smokers and of normal weight make the best smellers, but the experiment described in Science didn't delve into demographics.





I do frequently sniff things to see what I can identify, from various flower scents or the pleasant, but musty, scent of a forest area that is covered in dead leaves. Women have been tested on whether they can detect which tee shirt was worn by their husband as compared with several other men and found to be able to make the determination. Likewise, women can identify their baby's clothes by scent. It is known that a set of pheromones is given off by both women and men which cause sexual arousal in the other.

We do not talk much about scents or even pay much attention to them, as compared to dogs and cats, and I think most people would find talking about scents very much to be offensive socially. Unpleasant scents do, however, turn us off toward some people, as much as being offended by a hostile or sarcastic tone of voice and facial expression. I, for one, don't like most of the perfumes I ever encounter. I am also allergic to them except for a very few cases, so I don't wear any and slightly resent someone who has sprayed an irritating scent on too liberally. I don't know about that number of 1 trillion, but I think we are like the other creatures in having the basic equipment built in for helping us to define our world.




Why Turkey's Leader Has Vowed to 'Eradicate' Twitter
By Jacob Resneck, GlobalPost Contributor

ISTANBUL, Turkey — Turkey has blocked Twitter hours after the prime minister vowed he’d “eradicate” the popular social media site.

A controversial new internet law passed last month allows the country’s telecommunications authority to order content removed within hours without a court order.

On Thursday night, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed Twitter wasn’t complying with the new law, and told a rally of thousands that he’d bring the site down.

The press advisory of the Prime Ministry later in the night clarified Erdogan's statement, arguing that Twitter officials currently "ignore" some court rulings in Turkey, which order the social media platform to "remove some links" as per the complaints filed by Turkish citizens.

"[In Erdogan's speech] it is stated that as long as Twitter fails to change its attitude of ignoring court rulings and not doing what is necessary according to the law, technically, there might be no remedy but to block access in order to relieve our citizens," the statement said.

Reaction to the move — which came around midnight Friday local time — was swift. Major newspapers posted instructions offering simple technical workarounds to access the site.

“This is certainly a step backwards in terms of openness, transparency and the democratization process of Turkey,” said Yaman Akdeniz, a law professor at Bilgi University in Istanbul. “Restrictions on political speech and discourse of this scale is unacceptable in any country including in Turkey.”

Twitter representatives confirmed reports that the site had been disrupted.
“We're looking into this now,” said Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler. The company’s official account offered Turkish cell phone subscribers ways to send tweets via text message.

The cause of the ban is most certainly political as Turkey prepares for March 30 local elections, seen as a key test of power for the ruling Islamist-rooted AK Party, now in its 11th year of rule.

Anonymous users have been posting links to YouTube of audio recordings purporting to be wiretaps that expose rampant corruption within Erdogan's inner circle.
This follows a corruption scandal that erupted Dec. 17 that implicated three cabinet ministers as well as businessmen with close ties to the prime minister’s closest associates.


Justice and Development Party (Turkey)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Justice and Development Party (Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), abbreviated JDP in English and AK PARTİ or AKP in Turkish,† is a centre-right, social conservative political party in Turkey. It has developed from the tradition of Islamism, but has officially abandoned this ideology in favour of "conservative democracy".[10][11] The party is the largest in Turkey, with 327 members of parliament. Its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is Prime Minister, while fellow former party member and PM Abdullah Gül is President. In Turkish, Ak also means white.

The AKP portrays itself as a pro-Western and pro-American[12] party in the Turkish political spectrum that advocates a liberal market economy including Turkish membership in the European Union.[13] In 2005, the party was granted observer membership in the European People's Party. In November 2013, the party left the EPP to join the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists instead.

Ideology
Although the party is described as an Islamist party in some media, party officials reject those claims.[15] According to former minister Hüseyin Çelik, "In the Western press, when the AK Party administration -- the ruling party of the Turkish Republic -- is being named, unfortunately most of the time 'Islamic,' 'Islamist,' 'mildly Islamist,' 'Islamic-oriented,' 'Islamic-based' or 'with an Islamic agenda,' and similar language is being used. These characterizations do not reflect the truth, and they sadden us." Çelik added, "The AK Party is a conservative democratic party. The AK Party's conservatism is limited to moral and social issues."[16] Also in a separate speech made in 2005, Prime Minister Erdoğan stated, "We are not an Islamic party, and we also refuse labels such as Muslim-democrat." Erdoğan went on to say that the AK Party's agenda is limited to "conservative democracy".[17]

The party's foreign policy has also been described as Neo-Ottomanist,[18] an ideology that promotes renewed Turkish political engagement in the former territories of its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire. However, the party's leadership has also rejected this label.[19]




“This follows a corruption scandal that erupted Dec. 17 …. 'Restrictions on political speech and discourse of this scale is unacceptable in any country including in Turkey,' says Yaman Akdeniz, a law professor at Bilgi University in Istanbul.” This news article describes the party as being Islamist-rooted, but Wikipedia states that it denies this. According to the Wikipedia article this government is Western and US oriented, but it is clearly denying freedom to some extent to its citizens.

Interestingly, the news article says that “major newspapers” have posted instructions to get around the ban. It is more difficult in today's world for any government to completely suppress information. Unfortunately in some countries people may be jailed or even killed for speaking out. I am thinking of North Korea in particular, though there are others as well. This government in Turkey is apparently a US ally, so I hope that they don't use more stringent measures to silence people than just the closing of the Twitter site.




IRS warns of biggest tax scam ever – CBS
By Kathy Kristof MoneyWatch March 20, 2014

As if taxpayers don't have enough to worry about. Thousands of Americans have been conned out of more than $1 million by crooks posing as IRS agents demanding tax payments, according to the U.S. Treasury.

"This is the largest scam of its kind that we have ever seen," said J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, who says the agency has received more than 20,000 complaints about the fraud.

The sophisticated phone scam has hit victims in every state, tax officials say. Callers claiming to be from the IRS tell intended victims they owe taxes and must pay using a prepaid debit card or wire transfer. The scammers threaten those who refuse to pay with arrest, deportation or loss of a business or driver's license.

To lend the scam credibility, the crooks often know the last four digits of the taxpayer's Social Security number, and the calls are made with spoofed caller identification software that makes it appear the call is originating from the IRS.
In many cases, taxpayers will get follow-up calls that appear to be from their state motor vehicle agency (if a driver's license was threatened) or the police. The scammers also send follow-up emails that mimic the IRS insignia and even appear to be signed by real IRS officials.

"The increasing number of people receiving these unsolicited calls from individuals who fraudulently claim to represent the IRS is alarming," George said. "Particularly during the tax filing season, we want to make sure that innocent taxpayers are alert to this scam so they are not harmed by these criminals. Do not become a victim."
In reality, if you owe taxes, the IRS will contact you by U.S. mail -- not email. The agency never asks for payment via debit card or wire transfer. It never asks you to provide a credit card number over the phone. And it never requests personal or financial information by e-mail, text or social media.

"If someone unexpectedly calls claiming to be from the IRS and uses threatening language if you don't pay immediately, that is a sign that it is not the IRS calling," George said.

If you get a call from someone claiming to be with the IRS asking for a payment, here's what to do:
* If you owe federal taxes, or think you may owe taxes, hang up and call the IRS directly at 1-800-829-1040.
* If you don't owe taxes, call and report the incident to the Treasury inspector general of tax administration at 1-800-366-4484.
* You can also file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission at www.FTC.gov. Please add "IRS Telephone Scam" to the comments in your complaint.
* If you get an email that's purportedly from the IRS, do not open any attachments or click on any links in the email. Send it to phishing@irs.gov.
Taxpayers should also be aware of other unrelated scams (such as a lottery sweepstakes winner) and solicitations (such as debt relief) that fraudulently claim to be from the IRS. You can read more about identified tax scams at the IRS website, www.irs.gov.




“The crooks often know the last four digits of the taxpayer's Social Security number, and the calls are made with spoofed caller identification software that makes it appear the call is originating from the IRS.” I do wonder why the IRS or the FBI hasn't been able to track the email address which is sending the fallacious emails out. So often a computer geek can find this information out, identifying the criminals and what their mailing address is. Get to work, Feds!




Hall of Fame-nominated horse trainer under investigation following cruelty allegations – CBS
AP March 20, 2014
Daniel P. Derella, AP

ALBANY, N.Y. - Thoroughbred racing regulators in New York and Kentucky are investigating allegations of mistreatment of horses by Racing Hall of Fame-nominated trainer Steve Asmussen and his top assistant.

The states' racing commissions said Thursday that investigations were launched after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provided video evidence from an undercover investigation of Asmussen and some of his associates.

"The allegations and footage provided by PETA are extremely troubling, and we are fully investigating the matter," said Robert Williams, acting executive director of the New York Gaming Commission. "PETA has offered to assist the commission in its investigation, and we welcome such cooperation."

PETA, on its website, said its investigator worked for Asmussen at Churchill Downs and the Saratoga Race Course last summer and documented overuse of pain-masking drugs to push horses beyond the point of physical exhaustion. PETA also accused Asmussen and his top assistant, Scott Blasi, of administering drugs to horses for nontherapeutic purposes to boost performance, forcing injured horses to train and race and having one of their jockeys use an electric shocker to make horses run faster.

There was no answer Thursday at Asmussen's office in Arlington, Texas.
Tulsa, Okla., attorney Clark Brewster, who represents Asmussen and Blasi, told The New York Times the men will reserve comment until they've had time to fully review the accusations and would then respond factually.

The equine medical director of the New York state Office of Veterinary Affairs, Scott Palmer, who's assisting in the Gaming Commission investigation, said: "The behavior depicted in the undercover video and supporting materials is disturbing and disgusting."

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission issued a statement saying it would "conduct a thorough investigation of these allegations and take appropriate steps once that investigation is concluded."

Asmussen ranks second among trainers in career racing victories, with more than 6,700. He has earned more than $214 million in purses and is among 10 finalists named earlier this month to the National Museum of Racing Hall of Fame ballot, results of which will be announced April 25.

Asmussen has two Eclipse Awards as the nation's leading trainer. He trained Curlin to Horse of the Year honors in 2007 and 2008 and Rachel Alexandra to Horse of the Year in 2009.

Asmussen served a six-month suspension in 2006 after a filly he trained tested 750 times over the legal limit in Louisiana for a local anesthetic used to deaden pain in a horse's legs so it will continue to run. He turned the operation over to Blasi during that time.

The Times was first to report the PETA investigation.




Ausmussen has been convicted before of the same thing, but he and his apparently loyal assistant Blasi are back training horses now. They need to be put out of business. I wonder what credentials or accreditation there is for trainers. Maybe if this makes the news in a big enough way, owners will be warned against going to them in the future.

Unfortunately they have had a great deal of success with producing winners, but surely the owners of most horses wouldn't knowingly allow their horse to be treated this way. Giving the pain killing drug is bad enough, but the use of the stun gun or whatever it was on the horses is shocking – pun not intended.

So many people in our society operate outside the range of ethical activity in order to make more money that it is a shame. I wish good character were prized more highly. So many people will do all kinds of bad things unless they actually get caught. Knowing that what they are doing is cruel doesn't stop them. In the case of Ausmussen, he only received 6 months suspension in 2006 and didn't even have to pay a fine. Maybe the law protecting horses in these conditions needs to be stronger. Or maybe a judge was paid off to let him off so lightly. Whatever it was, it's a sad thing. Horses are too majestic and beautiful to hurt that way.




Older drivers may be impaired after just one drink – CBS
By Mary Brophy Marcus HealthDay March 21, 2014

Even a single glass of wine, bottle of beer or mixed drink might impair driving ability in people over the age of 55, new research suggests.

A small study by University of Florida scientists looked at how one serving of alcohol affected the driving skills of a group of 72 healthy people. Half ranged in age from 25 to 36 and the other half were between the ages of 55 and 70.

Downing a single alcoholic beverage did not raise any of the participants' blood alcohol levels over 0.08 -- the legal limit for driving. But it was enough to impair the driving skills of the older drivers, the study authors said in a recent issue of the journal Psychopharmacology.

"This study suggests that even low alcohol doses, producing alcohol levels below the current legal limit, can compromise some basic driving skills among older adults," said study co-author Alfredo Sklar, a doctoral candidate at the Center for Addiction Research and Education at the University of Florida College of Medicine.
At the start of the study, both age groups were asked to take a simulated driving test while sober along a 3-mile stretch of winding country road. The set-up for the driving test included several computers with large monitors in front and at the sides of the drivers to give the impression of side windows of a car. The driving console included a steering wheel, brake and gas pedal, and ambient sounds were pumped in via a stereo system. To add a touch of realism, occasionally another car passed.

The researchers tracked the drivers' ability to stay in their lane and maintain a constant speed, as well as their steering wheel use while traveling along the road.
On another day, the participants were divided into three groups. One group drank a lemon-lime nonalcoholic beverage, the second group drank an alcoholic beverage that produced a breath-test reading of 0.04 percent and the third group consumed an alcoholic beverage that raised the breath test to 0.065 percent. Neither of the alcoholic drinks caused the participants to hit the 0.08 percent legal limit, the researchers said.

The drivers then took a spin along the simulated roadway again.
Drinking less than one drink and then driving the simulated car did not have an impact on the younger groups' skills, but the older drivers exhibited poorer precision, according to the study. Their response at the wheel suggests "a greater sensitivity to alcohol among older drinkers," the researchers said.

Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, called the new findings "very interesting."

"Impairment can begin with the first drink, so it's important for people to think about what they have had to eat, what medications they may be taking and how their body typically responds to alcohol," Withers said.

The results suggest that it might be time to reassess legal blood alcohol levels for all drivers, the study authors said.

Changing drinking limits for drivers is not necessarily the answer, however, said Janina Kean, president and CEO of High Watch Recovery Center, a drug-rehab facility in Kent, Conn. "If you are going to drive an automobile you should not drink at all," said Kean, who is also a psychiatric nurse practitioner.

She said the country faces deeper issues of addiction, and jailing drunk drivers won't make significant inroads. "Caging them is not going to solve the problem of alcoholism," Kean said. "When they get out, they don't get treatment. You can't learn your lesson if it's a disease."

Younger drivers shouldn't take the results as a message that drinking and driving is OK, the experts also said.

Even though the older adults in the study were more sensitive to alcoholic drinks than the younger adults, Sklar said, the driving scenario he and his colleagues used for the study was far less complex than driving environments most people encounter in the real world, which can include pedestrians, animals, unusual traffic patterns, emergencies and other unpredictable drivers.

"Our findings do not mean these doses are completely safe for younger drivers," Sklar said.

Drinkers should always plan ahead for a designated driver if they intend to consume alcohol, MADD's Withers said. "The safest choice for anyone over the age of 21 is to have a designated nondrinking driver if they're going to drink," she said.




It's been over thirty years since I actually had a drink, but I do remember that I could feel a small reaction to the very first swallow. The problem with alcohol is that it is a very potent drug. The other problem with it is that even in prehistoric times people discovered that anything with a little sugar in it will ferment within a few days, so it is always available.

The Prohibition Era in the US was simply a time when many people made their own alcoholic beverages and patronized “speakeasies” to get their daily fix. If everyone would abstain from driving if they are going to drink any amount at all, we would be okay. There is a device that some judges have mandated that can be installed in the drinker's car and if he has any alcohol on his breath his car won't start. We should put that into use more often. I have had the misfortune to be on the road once while I lived in the Piedmont area of North Carolina, and I met a car swerving around on one of those curving country roads. I pulled over onto the verge and gave him the whole road. I didn't have a cell phone at that time, so I couldn't call the police on him. I hope he didn't cause somebody else to wreck.




­With New Inquiry, Harry Reid Raises Stakes In Senate-CIA Clash – NPR
by David Welna
March 20, 2014

­When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared "I support Senator Feinstein unequivocally" the same day she thrashed the CIA on the Senate floor, the question of whether the pugilistic top congressional Democrat from Nevada would leap into that fight seemed less a matter of if than when.

A little more than a week later, Reid made his move.
He fired off a letter to CIA Director John Brennan informing the top spy that Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer would be performing a "forensic examination" of computers and a computer network meant for exclusive use by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Feinstein, who chairs that panel, had accused the CIA of clandestinely removing hundreds of pages of documents from those computers and searching the computer network without her consent. The documents in question were part of a trove of more then six million pages the agency provided for an investigation, started in 2009, by the committee into CIA interrogation and detention practices during the George W. Bush administration.

Feinstein has asked the Justice Department to look into the CIA's removal of documents and its searches of the committee's computers.

But the probe, disclosed Thursday, that Reid has ordered looks at quite another matter: namely, how the committee investigators came into possession of a set of documents known as the "Internal Panetta Review" that the CIA clearly did not want them to see. (Democrats on the Intelligence panel say the Internal Panetta Review bolsters the conclusions in their still-classified 6,300 page report from Dec. 2012.)
The CIA's acting general counsel apparently believes Feinstein's committee staff may have obtained the Panetta review documents unlawfully and has filed a criminal report with the Justice Department.

In his letter to Brennan, Reid calls the suggestion that Intelligence Committee staffers hacked into the CIA's computer networks to get those documents "patently absurd."

But the Senate's top Democrat cannot count on the Justice Department to make the CIA's accusations go away. At a news conference on the same day Reid alerted Brennan of the sergeant at arms probe, Attorney General Eric Holder was decidedly non-committal when asked about opening investigations into either the CIA's or the Intelligence panel's complaints.

"We get referrals all the time," he said, adding that the DOJ would review the referrals in question and decide what action, if any, it would take.

Reid's initiative may take some of the heat off Holder to begin a formal probe. It might also be reason for skeptical Republicans on the Intelligence panel — who prefer to keep the 6,300 page report written by committee Democrats under wraps — to hold their fire while the sergeant at arms looks for any evidence of mischief by committee staffers.

But two problems loom. One is that Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer serves at the pleasure of the Senate's Democratic majority — making any probe he may carry out prone to charges of bias.

The other issue is Gainer himself. Just hours after Reid's notification of the probe to Brennan came to light, the majority leader's office made another announcement: Gainer would be departing his post "this spring". According to Reid's spokesman, Gainer's departure had been in the works for some time and has nothing to do with a probe assigned to his office that could potentially pit the sergeant at arms against the CIA. That task will likely fall to Deputy Sergeant at Arms Drew Willison, Gainer's designated successor.

However — and by whomever — the forensic examination of the committee's computers is carried out, Reid appears to be betting Feinstein's staffers will be exonerated. As he wrote to Holder in a letter sent the same day as the missive to Brennan:
"These developments strike at the heart of the constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Left unchallenged, they call into question Congress' ability to carry out its core constitutional duties and risk the possibility of an unaccountable Intelligence Community run amok."




It's Republicans versus Democrats again, with the underlying most important issue of the separation of powers between legislative and executive branches being at stake. The CIA had sought to withhold the
Internal Panetta Review, which Democrats say agreed with the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. The Senate committee managed to get the report anyway, and now the CIA is accusing them of using illegal means to do so. Feinstein is now accusing the CIA of searching the Senate's databases and removing the documents. Since Congress has the right and duty to oversee CIA activities, I side with the Democrats. With such an enormous set of secret CIA information, the public is not protected from abuse of power if Congress is not allowed to review their activities.

The CIA used unfair and inhumane methods to interrogate suspects, during the period of fear following 9/11. It began under George W. Bush, but continued under Obama. One news report said that the information which allowed Obama to find and execute Bin Laden came from some waterboarding of witnesses, so Obama used those methods, too. It's good that Bin Laden is dead; nonetheless, the inhumane interrogation of suspects by the CIA makes it impossible to trust them not to use it for other reasons in the future, such as to persecute domestic political enemies. I know we are supposed to trust our government, but the evidence of the eyes militates against it. I don't want the US to be like some third world countries in it's activities. "Trust, but verify!"