Monday, June 30, 2014


News Clips For The Week


Supreme Court exempts Hobby Lobby from Obamacare contraception mandate
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS June 30, 2014

Attempting to expand religious expression protections to small business owners without significantly disrupting the rules that govern for-profit corporations, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Obama administration must exempt closely-held firms like Hobby Lobby from a rule requiring large companies to help pay for their employees' birth control.

In a 5 to 4 decision, the court ruled that closely-held firms like Hobby Lobby are protected by Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The RFRA dictates that an individual's religious expression shouldn't be "substantially burdened" by a law unless there is a "compelling government interest."

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the contraception rule "would put these merchants to a difficult choice: either give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits, available to their competitors, of operating as corporations."

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. -- two privately-held, for-profit companies -- sued the United States government over a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide comprehensive health coverage (including contraception) or pay a fine. Hobby Lobby's owners, David and Barbara Green of Oklahoma, say they have strong objections based in their Christian faith to providing health care coverage for certain types of contraception. The Pennsylvania-based Hahn family, the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, had the same complaint.

The Obama administration already exempted nonprofits with religious affiliations, such as Catholic universities, from the contraception coverage rule.

Monday's ruling is a loss for reproductive rights advocates who have balked at the notion that some businesses can pick and choose which contraception methods to cover.

While it's a victory for Christian conservatives opposed to the contraception rule, the ruling skirts the broad ramifications that could have come from shielding all for-profit firms from laws that interfere with religious beliefs. Such a ruling, the administration argued, could have interfered with laws that ban gender discrimination, minimum wage and overtime laws, or mandated health coverage for vaccinations, to name a few.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/closely-held-corporation.asp

Definition of 'Closely Held Corporation'

Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis. These entities differ from privately owned firms that issue stock that is not publicly traded. Those who own shares of closely held corporations should consult a financial planner with expertise in the tax and estate ramifications that come with owning this type of stock.

Investopedia explains 'Closely Held Corporation'

Despite the fact that its stock is listed, many transactions between major shareholders and closely held corporations do not receive the same preferential tax treatment as those of corporations with actively traded stocks. Deductions and losses may not be allowed in some instances for parties involved in these transactions. 




Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. are both in a category of small corporations with over 50 employees which sued the US government for their rights to religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 against the administration, adding this type of company to those which are already exempted from providing all forms of birth control to employees via their health insurance. Some forms of birth control operate in a way that is effectively an abortion, some conservative lawmakers have argued, such as IUDs and the “morning after pill.” Abortion and birth control advocates argue that the cost of the medication or device is prohibitive to some women, and especially in those cases, they simply can't afford another baby.





Where did the GOP's foreign policy wise men go?
By JOHN DICKERSON CBS NEWS June 30, 2014

With the world in chaos and voters losing faith in President Obama's leadership, the Republican Party has an opportunity to reclaim its place in the foreign policy conversation. First, though, the party has to figure out what it wants to say. Its leaders have the basic gist: Obama bad. It's the delivery and the details where things get a little fuzzy. Right now there are at least three competing GOP visions to Obama's world view.

Sen. Rand Paul is the most articulate voice in the conservative movement for a more restrained U.S. foreign policy. On the other end of the spectrum, there is former vice president Dick Cheney, arguing for a forceful U.S. military presence in the middle of the chaotic Middle East. Between those two are those Republicans who believe in a robust American role in world affairs but recognize the practical limits of military force.

This middle group has a lot of adherents but no spokesperson. If they would like to assert themselves, they better find a champion soon because right now the media, Cheney, and Paul are all conspiring to drown out their views. And unless someone can articulate a non-Dick Cheney vision of the world, Rand Paul is poised to win the conversation.

In the wake of the recent turmoil in Iraq, Paul has come across as thoughtful and measured in both his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and on Meet the Press. He is critical of the president, but also of the architects of the Iraq war.

This is a good place to start if you want to begin a conversation with the American people. They are neither fans of the Iraq war, nor the president. Paul also is in sync with the national mood about foreign meddling. According to an April Pew poll, 52 percent of Americans believe that the United States should mind its own business and let other countries get along as best they can. In 2004, that number was 30 percent. Americans are also saying, by a margin of 51 percent to 17 percent, that the United States does too much rather than too little in helping solve the world's problems. Despite Republicans' recent criticism of the president, they are slightly more likely to share this view than Democrats--52 percent to 46 percent.

Paul offers a stark test for intervention in Iraq--or just about anywhere--now: Is it worth sacrificing his son? "Do I want to send one of my sons, or your son, to fight to regain Mosul?" he asked on Meet the Press. "These are nasty terrorists, we should want to kill them, but ... who should want to stop them more? Maybe the people who live there. Should not the Shiites, the Maliki government, should they not stand up? And, if they're ripping their uniforms off and fleeing, if they don't think Mosul is worth saving, how am I going to convince my son or your son to die for Mosul--another bad terrorist? And yes, we should prevent them from exporting terror; but, I'm not so sure where the clear-cut, American interest is."

That may be the wrong test for a foreign policy. The world may not be as simple as Paul claims and the first-term senator may be badly misrepresenting the Reagan foreign policy he claims to champion. But who will step forward to articulate that alternative worldview?

Right now the alternative to Paul's vision comes from Cheney. The former vice president is raising money for a new hawkish foreign policy organization and his fundraising emails sound just like his own Wall Street Journal op-ed. President Obama is weak, says Cheney, and terrorists are going to take advantage. This blunt, Hobbesian worldview and language is indistinguishable from Cheney's posture of the past 13 years. There's nothing in his pitch for a future foreign policy that acknowledges any personal mistakes or evolution in his thinking to match a changing world.

Cheney is unpopular and so are the policies he advocates. Three-fourths of the country opposes sending troops to Iraq (which Cheney supports), according to a recent CBS poll. Cheney thinks the Iraq war he helped launch was a success. According to a recent CBS poll, only 18 percent think that the Iraq war was worth it. That's the lowest that figure has ever been, though it is still higher than Cheney's approval rating when he left office, which was 13 percent.

But what's more entertaining than a Dick Cheney vs. Rand Paul fight? Their differences are stark! And both are good copy and rile up readers and viewers. The fight helps both Paul and Cheney, too. Paul needs the Cheney cartoon vision of foreign policy realism to convince primary voters that they must vote for him to avoid a return of neoconservatives like the guy in the cowboy hat with the knife in his teeth. Cheney needs Paul to convince foreign policy hawks that they should listen to him because the party might flounder and wind up supporting an isolationist who will bring terrorists to our doorsteps.

The country has soured on Obama's foreign policy stewardship. A plurality of 36 percent of the country thinks his policies have made America less safe, up from only 19 percent who felt that way in October 2011. For the past two years, the Republican Party has been regaining the edge on the question of which party do you trust on foreign policy, which it lost after the Bush-Cheney years.

The opportunity, say those on the right who critique Obama, is a foreign policy vision that outlines a more assertive American foreign policy than the one Paul would support but one that doesn't necessarily revolve solely around military might.

The conversation about this new view of power is happening in the think tank world. Former Republican officials and their policy gurus are thinking through what power means in the 21st century. But what is required--especially in a campaign against Hillary Clinton, who has an expertise in foreign affairs--is an articulate champion of views who can get past the GOP's association with the toxic Iraq war. But whoever the GOP's foreign policy wise men are, they better speak up. Because right now Dick Cheney and Rand Paul are speaking for you.




Public faith in Obama's skills at world affairs is flagging, so it's the GOP's best chance in a while, says this writer. “First, though, the party has to figure out what it wants to say. Its leaders have the basic gist: Obama bad. It's the delivery and the details where things get a little fuzzy. Right now there are at least three competing GOP visions to Obama's world view.” Rand Paul is arguing for a less active role for the US in world affairs; middle of the road Republicans who are not named in this article want to see a “robust” American involvement but less emphasis on military action; and Dick Cheney is a hawk a la George W. Bush. “This middle group has a lot of adherents but no spokesperson.”

Over 50% of people polled in April are against “meddling” in world affairs and “helping solve the world's problems," with Republicans leading in this, but 46% of Democrats also hold that view. Paul leads these people, with a viewpoint that a clear cut American interest should be present when we send in troops.

The unrepresented middle group of Republicans, according to this article, exist mainly in the “think tank” world. I wonder what Sen. McCain would have to say about this? He's generally middle of the road about things.

I also think that Obama himself has articulated a middle of the road policy, and his statement to the Iraqi government telling them to gear their constitution toward inclusion of minorities rather than combating them makes profoundly good sense and much greater amount of fairness. The same situation exists in Ukraine, where the Russian speaking people have been suppressed by Kiev, partly causing their rebellion.

On the other hand both Russia in Ukraine and ISIS in Iraq and Syria, while they have legitimate complaints about how they have been treated, are also attempting to totally take over their governments rather than merely gain some well deserved rights. They are both very destabilizing influences in their respective parts of the world. In the case of Iraq, if ISIS does take over that country, they are almost certain to send jihadists to the US mainland or to other American interests abroad. This, to me, is a clear-cut “American interest.”

Mr. Obama has disputed the roles of Iran and other Shia Muslims in banding together to fight ISIS. I'm not sure why. It's really their national interest more than ours, I think, and I agree with those who say we shouldn't defend the Shia if they won't fight for themselves. It really is very complicated. Personally, I would like to see what a joint effort of Iran and Iraq Shia fighters can bring about.





"They're delusional": Rivals ridicule ISIS declaration of Islamic state
CBS/AP June 30, 2014

BAGHDAD -- An al Qaeda breakaway group's formal declaration of an Islamic caliphate across the stretch of territory it controls in Syria and Iraq sparked celebrations among the group's followers Monday but condemnation and even ridicule from its rivals and authorities in Baghdad and Damascus.

The declaration was a bold move by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), not just announcing their own state governed by Shariah law but also claiming legitimacy as a successor to the first Islamic rule created by the Prophet Muhammad in the Arabian Peninsula 14 centuries ago. In an audio recording Sunday evening, the group proclaimed its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as caliph and demanded all Muslims around the world pledge allegiance to him.

Former CIA Director Michael Morell told "CBS This Morning" earlier this month that ISIS' first goal has been "to set up that caliphate and, it's not just in Iraq and in Syria."

"Their second goal then is to use that as a safe haven to attack the United States," he warned.

The announcement risks straining alliances with other Sunnis in Iraq that have helped the Islamic State achieve its blitz this month, seizing control of a large swath of the country's north and west.

Those Sunnis, including former officers in the military of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, have backed the Islamic State in hopes of bringing down Iraq's Shiite-led government but not necessarily its ambitions of carving out a transnational caliphate.

Through brute force and meticulous planning, the Sunni extremist group - which said it was changing its name to just the Islamic State - has carved out a large chunk of territory that has effectively erased the border between Iraq and Syria and laid the foundations of its proto-state. Along the way, it has battled Syrian rebels, Kurdish militias and the Syrian and Iraqi militaries.

The Iraqi military's offensive against ISIS stalled over the weekend during an assault on the jihadist-held city of Tikrit, reports CBS News correspondent Charlie D'Agata.

While the situation is fluid, the military's largest-yet offensive was pushed back and is the latest in a series of failures against the militants, D'Agata reports.

Following the group's announcement, Islamic State fighters in their northern Syrian stronghold of Raqqa paraded through the city to celebrate. Some of the revelers wore traditional robes and waved the group's black flags in a central square, while others zoomed around in pick-up trucks against a thundering backdrop of celebratory gunfire. Video of the celebrations was posted online, and activists in the city confirmed the details.

The Islamic State expelled rival rebel groups from Raqqa this spring, turning the city of some 500,000 along the banks of the Euphrates River into an image of the state it envisions. Activists from Raqqa have described life under the group's strict interpretation of Islamic law: music has been banned, Christians have to pay an Islamic tax for protection and people are executed in the main square.

It is unclear whether the Islamic State's declaration heralds the imposition of the same rules elsewhere. So far, the group has taken a more moderate approach in cities under its control in Iraq, including the northern city of Mosul and the central city of Tikrit, choosing to overlook some practices it considers forbidden. But the extremist faction was also more lenient in towns in Syria before eventually tightening its hold.

The announcement was greeted with condemnation and disdain elsewhere in Syria, including from rival Islamist rebel groups who have been fighting the Islamic State since January across northern and eastern Syria.

"The gangs of al-Baghdadi are living in a fantasy world. They're delusional. They want to establish a state but they don't have the elements for it," said Abdel-Rahman al-Shami, a spokesman for the Army of Islam, an Islamist rebel group. "You cannot establish a state through looting, sabotage and bombing."

Speaking over Skype from Eastern Ghouta, near the capital Damascus, al-Shami described the declaration as "psychological warfare" which he predicted will turn people against the Islamic State.

In Iraq, where the government has launched a counteroffensive to try to claw back some of the territory lost to the Islamic State in recent weeks, the declaration is viewed through the prism of the country's rising sectarian tensions.

"This is a project that was well-planned to rupture the society and to spread chaos and damage," said Hamid al-Mutlaq, a Sunni lawmaker. "This is not to the benefit of the Iraqi people, but instead it will increase the differences and splits."

The Islamic State has formed a loose alliance of sorts with other Sunni radicals in Iraq as well as former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, which has provided extra muscle to their assault.

Aymenn al-Tamimi, an analyst who specializes in Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, said he expects some of those allies could be disillusioned by the declaration.

"Now the insurgents in Iraq have no excuse for working with ISIS if they were hoping to share power with ISIS," he said using one of several acronyms for the Islamic State. "The prospect of infighting in Iraq is increased for sure."

It has seized upon widespread grievances among Iraq's Sunni minority and opposition to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government. Sunnis say they have been treated as second-class citizens and unfairly targeted by the security forces.

The Sunni militant offensive has prompted Shiite militias to reconstitute themselves, deepening fears of a return to the sectarian bloodletting that pushed the country to the brink of civil war in 2006 and 2007.

The Iraqi government, which has long tried portray the broader Sunni insurgency it faces as solely a terrorist threat, pointed to the Islamic State's declaration to back up its claims.

"This is what we have been saying that this origination is a terrorist one that should be fought, but regrettably, there are some people, the tribal revolutionaries, who are providing cover for it," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Moussawi said. "The world now bears a big and ethical responsibility to fight those terrorists who made Iraq and Syria their battlefield. We are fighting them not for the sake of Iraq only, but for the sake of the whole world."




The “Islamic State” is the newest name for ISIS or ISIL. “In an audio recording Sunday evening, the group proclaimed its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as caliph and demanded all Muslims around the world pledge allegiance to him.” Al-Qaeda and other Islamic groups are expressing both rage and ridicule at them, and calling them “delusional.” They do seem to be high on their own success. The old phrase “Pride goeth before a fall,” comes to my mind. They are making enemies at a rate that may cause their defeat.

The Islamic State took over the city of Raqqa this spring. “Activists from Raqqa have described life under the group's strict interpretation of Islamic law: music has been banned, Christians have to pay an Islamic tax for protection and people are executed in the main square.” Things like banning music, of all things, and outright persecution of Christians is too restrictive to be tolerated for very long, I think. Still, the ordinary people in those areas need to organize for communication among themselves and to form militias, perhaps city by city before the Islamic State gets to their area, so they can be ready to fight. As long as police lay down their guns without a fight and strip off their uniforms so they can escape without being identified, the radical organization will conquer without even losing any men.




Woman shot by vendor at Pa. gun show – CBS
By CRIMESIDER STAFF AP  June 30, 2014

BLOOMSBURG, Pa. -- A vendor at a central Pennsylvania gun show accidentally shot a woman in the leg while demonstrating a gun and holster, police said.

The Columbia County district attorney's office will determine whether the vendor, 44-year-old Geoffrey Hawk, will face criminal charges stemming from the shooting Saturday at the Bloomsburg Fairgrounds, Officer Brad Sharrow said.

He was manning a booth for his business at the Eagle Arms Gun show at the time of the shooting. Hawk, of Warminster, didn't immediately return calls Sunday to his cellphone and business, In Case of Emergency Enterprises.

Hawk told police he thought the gun was not loaded when he demonstrated a concealed-carry wallet holster to the woman, Krista Gearhart, 25, of Orangeville. Gearhart was treated and released for a thigh wound at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville.

Hawk told police he had done the same demonstration about 20 times without incident before the shooting, "racking" the gun's slide to clear it of bullets each time, Officer Sharrow said.

Police said Hawk told them he had left the gun on display when he completed background checks on some customers and believes it's possible someone loaded the gun when he was busy.

Joel Koehler, the gun show organizer, said Hawk was asked to close his booth and leave the show, which continued Sunday. The show has an entrance sign that says "No Loaded Weapons" and Koehler said his staff checks all guns to ensure they are empty before they are brought in for display.

Koehler said Saturday's shooting was the first at any show he has held at the fairgrounds or anywhere else.




Some gun advocates like to say “guns aren't dangerous, only people are.” Yes, but.... This is the exception that proves the rule, as people say. Who would have put a bullet in the gun while Hawk's back was turned? His worst enemy, or a teenage boy? Guns are fired accidentally many times every year, making the news time after time. Luckily this woman was only shot in the thigh. It will hurt a great deal, but probably won't lead to her death. That's the only good news in this story.




Detroit boy found in basement says stepmom put him there – CBS
AP June 29, 2014

DETROIT - A 12-year-old Detroit boy who was missing for more than a week before he was discovered in his own basement told investigators his stepmother sent him there, according to a court record obtained by a newspaper.

The petition, filed in Wayne County juvenile court by Children's Protective Services as part of a custody hearing, was obtained by the Detroit Free Press. A court employee told The Associated Press a petition was filed Friday, but it was not released to the public or the media.

According to the Free Press, the document says Charlie Bothuell V was placed in the basement behind boxes and totes by his stepmother, Monique Dillard-Bothuell, and told "not to come out, no matter what he hears."

Although Dillard-Bothuell knew her stepson was in the basement, she did not bring him food, according to the petition, which also says: "Charlie reports sneaking upstairs to get food when everyone left the home."

Charlie was found Wednesday by Detroit police in the bowels of the multiple-unit condo building where he lived with Dillard-Bothuell and his father, Charlie Bothuell IV. He was evaluated at a hospital and returned to his mother, police spokeswoman Sgt. Eren Stephens said.

The AP left messages Friday with Dillard-Bothuell, Charlie Bothuell IV and Bothuell's lawyer, Mark Magidson.

Authorities removed the boy's two younger siblings - 4 years old and 10 months old - from the custody of Dillard-Bothuell and Charlie Bothuell IV.

The document obtained by the Free Press also says Bothuell disclosed on Monday that he disciplined his son with a PVC pipe.

The petition says that after Charlie was taken to a hospital for treatment, a doctor observed a half-circular scar on the boy's chest. Charlie says the scar was "a result of his father driving a PVC pipe into his chest," according to the petition, which also says the child had old scars on his buttocks from being hit with the pipe.

Bothuell has denied abusing his son. Magidson also denied that a pipe was used to beat Charlie.

A warrant request in connection with the case has not been turned over to the Wayne County prosecutor's office, spokeswoman Maria Miller said.

According to The Detroit News, Magidson said child abuse charges are likely to be filed against Bothuell.

Dillard-Bothuell was arrested Thursday on a probation violation related to a misdemeanor gun charge. In court Friday, Dillard-Bothuell was ordered to wear a tether. She's due back in court July 11. Magidson said her arrest was "highly disingenuous."

The boy's father, who made tearful television pleas for help while his son was missing, has said he had no idea the boy was in the basement. Bothuell reported his son missing June 14. The boy had been working out at home about 9 p.m., went to use the restroom and never returned, Bothuell told police.

Officers searched the home on at least three occasions before they stumbled across the boy apparently hiding behind boxes and a large plastic drum in the basement Wednesday afternoon. Police have said they do not believe the boy had been there the whole time.




“According to the Free Press, the document says Charlie Bothuell V was placed in the basement behind boxes and totes by his stepmother, Monique Dillard-Bothuell, and told 'not to come out, no matter what he hears.'" This looks like she intended to pull some kind of scam. Perhaps the Bothuels hoped they could raise money from the public if they cried and pled for help, like the father did. The article goes on to say, though, that Dillard Bothuell didn't bring him any food and he had to sneak upstairs to get some when the house was empty. That sounds like another bizarre form of punishment.

“The document obtained by the Free Press also says Bothuell disclosed on Monday that he disciplined his son with a PVC pipe,” and scars were found on his body where he had been poked forcibly with the end of the pipe. Nonetheless, both Bothuel and his lawyer denied the strange form of corporal punishment. Such scars could not possibly be self-inflicted, however, especially on his buttocks.

He is now in the care of his natural mother and Bothuel's other two children are removed from the home by the police. Thank goodness. Some people should never have the custody of children. “A warrant request in connection with the case has not been turned over to the Wayne County prosecutor's office, spokeswoman Maria Miller said.” Why is that, I wonder? Is it unclear who used the pipe on him and produced the scars? Are they waiting to build a better case? The boy said his father did it. Clearly it was done by either Bothuell or his wife. Hopefully there will be more news on this story as the case develops. I wonder if they belong to some strange kind of religious cult or something like that. I'm so glad his real mother is alive to take care of him. This is one case of a really “wicked stepmother,” just like in the fairy tales, and the father is no better.




Dog Coughs Up Missing Wedding Ring Lost 6 Years Ago – ABC
By Yazhou Sun Via Good Morning America
June 30, 2014

Dog Eats $10,000 Worth of Diamonds

When Lois Matykowski lost her wedding ring six years ago, she was devastated. After checking every spot in the house, the yard, the car, and even her dog’s poop for a few weeks, she gave up.

“My husband and I had been married for 20 years at that time,” Matykowski told ABC News. “We had just upgraded the ring, and it wasn’t insured. And it wasn't just the value, but also the emotional ties. How do you replace that?”

The ring's whereabouts became clear earlier this month when Tucker, the family's dog, coughed up the truth - and the ring.

The 10-year-old Rottweiler mix adopted from the Wisconsin Humane Society, is known as the “food burglar” in the house.

“He is 10 years old, but he acts like he is 2,” Matykowski said.

Last Monday, Matykowski was eating popsicles out on the yard with her two granddaughters. She noticed Tucker panting, so she got up to get some water for him.

“Just when I turned around and looked at my granddaughter, the popsicle was gone already,” Matykowski said. “And there was Tucker smacking his jaws.”

The “food burglar” had struck again, swallowing the whole popsicle, including the stick. Scared that Tucker would get sick, Matykowski immediately called the veterinarian. The veterinarian asked Matykowski to put some Vaseline between two slices of bread to help the stick come out of Tucker’s tummy.

Miraculously, Tucker coughed up the stick shortly after the incident. However, two days later, Tucker got sick again.

“He was making goofy noises, and was acting like he was going to throw up,” Matykowski said. Matykowski’s husband, Don, got Tucker out on the yard, and Tucker threw up.

When Matykowski walked up to Tucker’s vomit with cleaning supplies in her hands, she spotted something sparkly.

There it was-- her diamond ring that disappeared six years ago.

“I screamed. I kid you not,” Matykowski said.

Matykowski brushed the ring very gently with a soft toothbrush and toothpaste, and it looked exactly the same just like six year ago.

"He loves anything that smells good. He will eat whatever he could get his hands on," Matykowski said. “We try to stick to dog treats, but he is 55 pounds and his front paws can grab snacks pretty easily."

Tucker's veterinarian said the popsicle stick might have dislodged the ring. The vet also gave Tucker a full X-ray to make sure that there was no more hidden treasures in his belly.

"My friends have been telling me: 'I want a dog that throws up diamonds,'" Matykowski said. "Who wouldn't, right?"

"Tucker is a big dog on campus now. He is my hero," Matykowski said.




“Tucker's veterinarian said the popsicle stick might have dislodged the ring. The vet also gave Tucker a full X-ray to make sure that there was no more hidden treasures in his belly.” I've heard of dogs eating bizarre and indigestible things before. That was even listed in a description of rabies symptoms in dogs – eating wood, stones and other such things. Puppies are more likely to do it than adult dogs are without being sick. I think this dog has personality problems, or he wouldn't have made a lifetime habit of it as an adult. He may need to go to Overeaters Anonymous, or something. Many large dogs do gulp their food down, but they should be able to detect a popsicle stick in it. I think this may be a sign of very low intelligence. Maybe he's neurotic and needs to take a tranquilizer. Vets are giving dogs tranquilizers and anti-depressants nowadays. There are even dog psychologists who do doggy therapy to make them stop chewing on the furniture and other such bad habits. This story did give me a laugh or two or three, however. I'm glad Tucker is going to be okay after all that. His picture looks like he's a charming, happy kind of dog. I'll bet he's a great pet.