Saturday, July 26, 2014


News Clips For The Day


https://gma.yahoo.com/prince-georges-birthday-gifts-president-obama-revealed-230420261--abc-news-celebrities.html

Prince George's Birthday Gifts From President Obama Revealed
By Carolyn Durand
July 25, 2014

Ever wonder what President Obama got Prince George when he was born?

This weekend, the Buckingham Palace children's exhibit will answer that question and more.

President Barack Obama sent the son of Kate Middleton and Prince William a blue alpaca wool baby blanket shortly after his birth last year on July 22, according to the Palace.

George, who turned 1 earlier this week, was also sent a handmade rocking horse with the presidential seal on its saddle, and a polo mallet with a head made from the branch of an oak tree that once stood on the south lawn of the White House.

These lavish gifts will be on display at the Palace for the “Royal Childhood” exhibit, which opens Saturday and lasts for eight weeks. It is a yearly tradition that starts with the Queen leaving for Balmoral Castle in Scotland.

While the Queen is on holiday, visitors can come into the palace and tour the exhibit.




I couldn't resist this article for its look at the lives of a couple of rich and famous people. A handmade rocking horse with the presidential seal on its saddle and a presumably child-sized polo mallet is a lovely gift. Almost nothing is made by hand anymore, and from a tree on the White House lawn. Blessings to the very cute baby George.






McCain: Ariz. execution a "bollocks-upped situation"
AP  July 25, 2014

TUCSON, Ariz. - U.S. Sen. John McCain says the execution of an Arizona inmate that lasted two hours was torture.

The Republican who represents the conservative state told Politico that he supports capital punishment for certain crimes but felt Wednesday's execution of Joseph Rudolph Wood was a "bollocks-upped situation."

The execution brought new attention to the death penalty debate in the U.S. as opponents said it was proof that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment.

Arizona lawmakers, however, say the debate is not likely to have an impact on practices in the state.

It took Wood nearly two hours to die after he received a lethal injection with a combination of the sedative midazolam and the painkiller hydromorphone.

He spent more than 90 minutes gasping for air every five to 12 seconds before he finally stopped breathing.

Arizona has suspended executions while an investigation is conducted.

In the interview with Politico published Thursday, McCain said people responsible should be held accountable in the execution of Wood.

"The lethal injection needs to be an indeed lethal injection and not the bollocks-upped situation that just prevailed. That's torture," the senator said.

Calls by The Associated Press seeking comment from McCain were not immediately returned on Friday.

Wood's attorneys said the execution should have taken 10 minutes, and they called it a "horrifically botched execution."

Department of Corrections Director Charles Ryan has dismissed the contention that the execution was botched, calling it an "erroneous conclusion" and "pure conjecture."

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, said he supports a review of the Wood execution but it's not likely that state legislators will change their minds about the death penalty. Republicans control both chambers of the Arizona Legislature.

"Well I think they're not going to be receptive to abolish it, no, but if there's some methods that the Democrats want to offer that say, here's a better way to go about this, we will consider that. But I don't think there's a real chance that there's going to be an elimination of the death penalty," Tobin said.

Tobin is campaigning around the state in his bid for a U.S. Congress seat.

Still, Democrats hope the Wood execution will at least spark conversation in the Legislature.

"I think the Legislature is going to have to look at this and determine what steps to take," said DJ Quinlan, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party. "It warrants a serious adult discussion that hopefully will remove politics."

Arizona Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, heads the judiciary committee and said he also does not think the Wood execution will change many minds about the death penalty.

But he said the state Legislature, which is not in session, may eventually have to consider the issue depending on what happens next at the Department of Corrections.

"I support the death penalty for crimes that rise to that level, but it must be carried out with all the due process that we cherish as Americans and it must be carried out as humanely as possible," Murphy said.

No other Arizona inmates are scheduled to be executed. The state can technically obtain death warrants for five others, meaning those inmates have exhausted their appeals and the next step is being assigned an execution date.

Wood and two of those inmates, Graham Henry and David Gulbrandson, filed a lawsuit against the state challenging its secrecy over the drug combination used in lethal injections. The lawsuit is pending.

The execution of Wood was the third to go awry this year in the country.

An Ohio inmate gasped in similar fashion for nearly 30 minutes in January. An Oklahoma inmate died of a heart attack in April, minutes after prison officials halted his execution because the drugs weren't being administered properly

In Oklahoma, the state appeals court agreed in May to a six-month stay of execution for a death row inmate while an investigation is conducted into the April 29 lethal injection of Clayton Lockett. The state has continued to schedule executions, and currently three are on the calendar later




“The execution brought new attention to the death penalty debate in the U.S. as opponents said it was proof that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment.... The Republican who represents the conservative state told Politico that he supports capital punishment for certain crimes but felt Wednesday's execution of Joseph Rudolph Wood was a 'bollocks-upped situation.'…. 'I think the Legislature is going to have to look at this and determine what steps to take,' said DJ Quinlan, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party. 'It warrants a serious adult discussion that hopefully will remove politics.'" Wood and two other inmates filed suit to stop the secrecy over what drugs were used. There is no need for secrecy, and states should be as concerned about getting the right combination of drugs as the public is. That suit is still in the courts.

Some people in the US are saying now that the firing squad is the cleanest, fastest and most certain way to kill a convicted criminal. A few others have even suggest the use of hanging. Hanging is to me very cruel and, like this lethal injection problem, occasionally is not a quick or complete killing, as people can live with a broken neck. A firing squad is just too bloody for me. Lethal injection, if they would get their chemicals and dosages correct, would be the most humane way to administer the death penalty. Three times now they have failed to do that and had a prolonged, torturous death. I agree with Sen. McCain that that is “cruel and unusual.” They have also in the past used a drug that paralyzes the criminal so that he can't cry out or defend himself, but which does not always block the body from experiencing pain. That should be banned. Use a drug first that successfully prevents pain as well as keeping the criminal from thrashing around. Then use a strong dose of a completely lethal drug – something as effective as cyanide.

The real problem with the death penalty to me is the fact that in too many cases DNA or other exonerating evidence is discovered after the trial, which proves that the inmate didn't even commit the crime, so he certainly should not be executed. There are also cases when a criminal may have committed the crime, but is mentally disabled, either intellectually or due to a disease like schizophrenia. Some states allow the mentally disabled to be executed. I think Federal law should ban that practice. A sentence of life imprisonment without parole in a high security prison would solve the problem of holding a very dangerous criminal, or in the case of mental problems, commitment for life to a hospital for the criminally insane.





Official: Pa. hospital gunman intended to kill many -- CBS
By CRIMESIDER STAFF AP  July 25, 2014

MEDIA, Pa. - A psychiatric patient ranted about a hospital gun ban before opening fire at the suburban Philadelphia medical complex, killing his caseworker and grazing his psychiatrist before the doctor pulled out his own weapon and fired back, authorities said Friday.

Dr. Lee Silverman emptied his chamber, striking patient Richard Plotts several times. Plotts by then had shot the caseworker in the face and fired several shots at Silverman, including one that grazed his temple and another that struck his thumb, officials said.

Plotts had 39 unspent bullets on him when he was wrestled to the ground at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, authorities say - and police believe he had planned to use them.

"I believe that if the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he'd be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead," Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan said Friday.

Plotts, 49, was sedated but in stable condition after surgery Thursday from his gunshot wounds, police said. They expect to arraign him bedside at a Philadelphia hospital on Friday, charging him with murder in the death of 53-year-old caseworker Barbara Hunt.

Plotts does not have a listed home number, and it was unclear if he has relatives in the area.

"When the caseworker was shot, (Silverman) crouched down behind the desk to avoid him being shot," Whelan said. "He was able to reach for his weapon, and realizing it was a life-or-death situation, was able to engage the defendant in the exchange of gunfire."

The struggle spilled into the hallway, where another doctor and caseworker jumped in to help Silverman and secure Plotts' weapon, Whelan said.

Police in Upper Darby, where Plotts lived, were aware of at least three mental health commitments of the suspect - once after he cut his wrists and once when he threatened suicide - but said such stays can last just one to three days.

Plotts also had at least four gun arrests, along with assault and drug charges, according to police and court records. And he has been barred from at least one residential shelter because of his violent history, Upper Darby police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said Friday.

Cathy Nickel, a neighbor at Plotts' last known address, an apartment complex in Upper Darby, saw a caseworker move him out of the building about a year ago. As he was taken away in a van, she said, he yelled, "You haven't heard the end of me!"

Plotts had complained to Silverman previously about the gun policy. He showed up nearly an hour early Thursday for a regular appointment with the doctor, whom he had last seen about six weeks ago. Silverman called the caseworker to join them, officials said.

Colleagues heard arguing during the appointment and saw Plotts aiming a gun at Silverman when they peeked inside the door. They quietly backed out and called 911. The shooting soon began, just before 2:30 p.m.

The psychiatrist was recuperating at home Friday. His wife said he did not want to discuss the shooting, and she also declined to comment.

Hospital policy bars anyone except on-duty law enforcement officers from carrying weapons on campus, a Mercy Health System spokeswoman said. She otherwise declined to discuss why Silverman was armed at work.




“Police in Upper Darby, where Plotts lived, were aware of at least three mental health commitments of the suspect - once after he cut his wrists and once when he threatened suicide - but said such stays can last just one to three days. Plotts also had at least four gun arrests, along with assault and drug charges, according to police and court records. And he has been barred from at least one residential shelter because of his violent history, Upper Darby police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said Friday.”

When I first read this story last week I thought it was weird that a doctor in a hospital was carrying a weapon. That article didn't give any background information and I didn't realize it was a psychiatric hospital. I fully understand the situation now, and I think the doctor was just being practical to carry a weapon when dealing with that kind of patient, and as a psychiatrist he probably deals with many of those cases. This patient had proven himself to be suicidal, but that doesn't necessarily mean he would try to kill others. It is, however, fairly typical of these mass shootings that the perpetrator will end his killing spree by shooting himself. Unfortunately, this psychiatrist may be charged with a crime for having a weapon in his possession. If I see any more about this case I will collect the article.






House to Obama: Don't send troops to Iraq without our approval
CBS/AP  July 25, 2014

WASHINGTON -- The House overwhelmingly passed a resolution Friday that would bar President Barack Obama from sending forces to Iraq in a "sustained combat role" without congressional approval, a bill likely to have greater symbolic than legal effect.

The measure still must pass the Senate to force a showdown with the president. And it risks opening up several questions related to the Constitution's separation of powers between executive and legislative branches, even if Obama and his top military advisers already have ruled out sending combat troops to help Iraq fight extremist insurgents.

Friday's legislation was approved by a 370-40 vote after Republican and Democratic lawmakers emphasized the need to reassert what they argued is their constitutional control over authorizing military force.

"This resolution makes one clear statement," said its sponsor, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "If the president decides we should further involve our military in Iraq, he needs to work with Congress to authorize it."

"The time to debate our re-engagement in Iraq, should it come to that, is before we are caught in the heat of the moment," he said. "Not when the first body bags come home. Not when the first bombs start to fall. Not when the worst-case scenario is playing out on our TV screens."

More than 800 U.S. forces are in Iraq. More than half are providing security for the embassy and U.S. personnel. American service members also are involved in improving U.S. intelligence, providing security cooperation and conducting assessments of Iraqi capabilities.

U.S. officials say the Sunni extremists who call themselves the Islamic State pose a significant threat to the American homeland. The group has expanded from its base in Syria and seized a series of towns and cities in Iraq in recent months, including Mosul, the country's second-largest city.

Officials are particularly concerned about people bearing passports from the U.S. and the European Union who have entered the fighting in Iraq and Syria. They worry that the foreign fighters could be radicalized by their time on the battlefield and return home to attack the West. The FBI estimates that roughly 100 American passport-holders have joined the fray, along with thousands of Europeans.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk told lawmakers during a pair of congressional hearings this week that the fighters in Iraq and Syria may pose a bigger threat to the U.S. than al Qaeda, the group that orchestrated the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. He urged the U.S. to try to isolate the militants with Islamic State from other groups fighting in Iraq.




http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/obama-to-iraq-your-problem-now

Obama to Iraq: Your Problem Now
BY AMY DAVIDSON
JUNE 13, 2014

In his State of the Union address, in January, President Obama said, “When I took office, nearly a hundred and eighty thousand Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq.” It was a boast, not an apology. The descent of Iraq into open civil war in the past week has not, to judge from his remarks on Friday, fundamentally changed that view. He did grant that it was alarming that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, “a terrorist organization that operates in both Iraq and in Syria,” had made what he delicately called “significant gains” in Iraq. (That is, it has taken control of more than one city.) He said that he wasn’t entirely surprised—things hadn’t been looking good in Iraq for a while, and we’d been giving the government there more help. “Now Iraq needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of Iraqi security forces,” he said. After all, as he put it, “Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq.” But there were limits: “We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq.”

Speaking from the South Lawn, Obama argued that this was not just a matter of what the American people would accept, or the limits of our capacity to make sacrifices for humanitarian goals. It’s more that he doesn’t see the point. As he sees it, after all our investment of lives and money—“extraordinary sacrifices”—the Iraqis have not been willing to treat each other decently, and until they do our air strikes won’t help. “This is not solely, or even primarily, a military challenge,” he said, and went on:

Unfortunately, Iraqi leaders have been unable to overcome, too often, the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there.… We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action—including any assistance we might provide—won’t succeed.… So the United States will do our part, but understand that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems.

The Iraqis, from Obama’s perspective, have all too many problems that are not his. The hesitation here is the sense that the problems are ours, too: we did invade the country, setting off an upheaval in which, alongside American losses, an even greater number of Iraqis were killed. But the Administration, as Dexter Filkins has written, has been thoroughly frustrated with the government of Nuri al-Maliki, which is dominated by members of the country’s Shiite majority, and has moved against its Sunni population. It is not a simple matter, if it ever was, of the people we really like (and who like us) against the ones who don’t. (Try factoring in the role of ISISin fighting the Assad regime, in Syria, and our possible shared interests with Iran in Iraq, and you’re left with a chalkboard of squiggly equations.) One question to emerge from our wars is our susceptibility to a certain sort of blackmail by regimes we support: without me, there is Al Qaeda and chaos. When Andrea Mitchell, of NBC, asked Senator John McCain, who had been railing against the Obama Administration’s decision to withdraw troops in Iraq, whether Maliki could really be persuaded to change his ways, McCain replied, “He has to, or he has to be changed.” How that would be accomplished was, as always in Iraq—a land we seem to associate with the granting of wishes—left unclear.

Obama talked about intensive diplomacy; he mentioned all the options his military planners were looking at, and suggested that he’d take his time looking at them. He called this moment a “wake-up call” for the Iraqi government: “As I said before, we are not going to be able to do it for them.” And then, in case anybody had missed the point:
We’re not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which while we’re there we’re keeping a lid on things and, after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we’re not there, suddenly people end up acting in ways that are not conductive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country.

Last year, Obama sat down for several interviews with David Remnick, the editor of this magazine, in which he made clear how profoundly he did not want to be dragged. Remnick wrote, of their conversation, “I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.”
Obama replied, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Given that ISIS now controls cities in Iraq and trenches are being built around Baghdad, “jayvee” may not have been the word that he was looking for; it strikes one as a severe underestimation. Looking at the rest of what Obama said, though, it seems that the analogy he was looking for was just out of the frame: “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.” It’s a matter of kind, not capacity: if Albert Pujols puts on a Lakers uniform, that doesn’t make him Kobe Bryant.
Speaking with Remnick, Obama applied that notion specifically to Iraq: “Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”

In other words, the horribleness of what is happening can be granted; so can the extreme Islamism of those horrible actors. That still doesn’t, per se, make it “a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.” (And those two elements—the threat and the wading—are clearly linked in the President’s calculations.) Obama, in his interview with Remnick, went on:

You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there. You have failed states that are just dysfunctional, and various warlords and thugs and criminals are trying to gain leverage or a foothold so that they can control resources, populations, territory… . And failed states, conflict, refugees, displacement—all that stuff has an impact on our long-term security. But how we approach those problems and the resources that we direct toward those problems is not going to be exactly the same as how we think about a transnational network of operatives who want to blow up the World Trade Center. We have to be able to distinguish between these problems analytically, so that we’re not using a pliers where we need a hammer, or we’re not using a battalion when what we should be doing is partnering with the local government to train their police force more effectively, improve their intelligence capacities.

“Failed states, conflict, refugees, displacement—all that stuff has an impact on our long-term security”; but brutally meandering wars, and all that stuff that goes with them, have an impact, too. When Remnick asked Obama if he was “haunted by Syria,” the President replied that he was “haunted by what happened,” but added, “I am not haunted by my decision not to engage in another Middle Eastern war.” Last month, in a speech at West Point, “haunted” was the word Obama chose when talking about his surge of troops in Afghanistan: “I believe America’s security demanded those deployments. But I am haunted by those deaths. I am haunted by those wounds.”

It cannot be absent from the President’s calculations that, just two weeks ago, he had to accept the resignation of General Eric Shinseki—a man he clearly liked and admired, not least for his insistence, a decade ago, that the enterprise in Iraq would be a bit trickier than George W. Bush let on—because of the dysfunction of the Veterans Administration. We’d never got around to adapting the V.A. to the needs of young men and women whose lives had been shaped and, in too many cases, shattered by their service in Iraq and Afghanistan. All Obama could say was that he’d brought them home. That was all, really, he wanted to say.




In his address of JUNE 13, 2014 Obama has already addressed the question of whether he would send in US soldiers to fight alongside the Iraqi troops, and he said he would not. 'Now Iraq needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of Iraqi security forces,' he said. After all, as he put it, 'Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq.' But there were limits: 'We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq.'”

This move by Congress, which did include some Democratic votes, seems to be a statement of principle, rather than a specific prohibition about Iraq's current war. I have always thought it was far better for Presidents to go through the proper channels and get permission from the legislature before making warlike moves on their own authority, and a number of attacks have been launched in recent decades without that permission, so there is some history of presidential overstepping of their boundaries. If the US is attacked first the president has the power to order an assault against an enemy, as I understand it. President Roosevelt was accused of purposely allowing the Japanese forces to attack Pearl Harbor because Congress at the time had consistently refused to allow him permission to enter WWII. Meanwhile Hitler was gobbling up large parts of Europe and putting millions of Jews and other “inferior” people to death. The fact that ISIS is a threat that may be worse than al-Qaeda, if it succeeds in taking over Iraq completely, is something that we should deal with, but as Obama concluded, a third war in Iraq is neither warranted nor a solution to the problem. The Congressional ban at this time on Obama's entering another war there is neither needed nor sensible. It looks like an attempt to rouse the public to a greater espousal of the Republican party – a gimmick.






Ohio State band director fired, "sexualized culture" exposed
CBS NEWS July 25, 2014

A scandal is rocking one of the country's most celebrated marching bands.

The leader of Ohio State University's "Pride of the Buckeyes," Jonathan Waters, was fired after the school learned of widespread sexual harassment and intimidation among the performers, Shelby Croft of CBS News affiliate WBNS reports.

The ongoing sexual escapades, which took university officials by surprise, were uncovered by an investigation prompted by a parent's complaint two months ago. Officials were quick to take action, and they promised quick reform.

The Ohio State marching band is known for its precision and showmanship on the field. Videos of halftime tributes to Hollywood movies and Michael Jacksonreceived millions of hits online.

But off the field, university investigators found evidence the band encouraged a "sexualized culture," behavior they contend the ousted band director either knew about, or should have.

The university's president issued a video statement.

"Jon Waters was terminated from his position as band director," said President Michael Drake. "And we will move forward with the marching band season and launch a search for a permanent director now."

The two-month investigation uncovered a long list of sexually-charged situations. Band members were pressured to march up their stadium's ramp in their underwear. Upperclassmen gave raunchy nicknames to new members, who were often ordered to assume sexually suggestive poses. They were given sex surveys, dubbed "rookie midterms," and told to walk down the aisle of their tour bus while other students tried to remove their clothing.

"When everybody told you to get down to your underwear you weren't exactly sure what was going on," said former marching band member Jason Miaw. "We try to keep it hidden around parents and in public."

While Waters admitted witnessing some of the questionable behavior, he told investigators he was open to making drastic changes. The band leader's attorney tells CBS News that many of the things the report talks about occurred years or decades before his client was band director.

He told CBS News, "Jon is a very fine person who...is going to fight in one way or another to clear his good name."

Ohio State University promises an independent investigation led by the state's former attorney general.

"Every single student on our campus must be able to learn, to grow and to experience Ohio State in a safe and positive environment," President Drake said. "We will make this a better and safer institution. And we begin today."




“The two-month investigation uncovered a long list of sexually-charged situations. Band members were pressured to march up their stadium's ramp in their underwear. Upperclassmen gave raunchy nicknames to new members, who were often ordered to assume sexually suggestive poses. They were given sex surveys, dubbed "rookie midterms," and told to walk down the aisle of their tour bus while other students tried to remove their clothing.... While Waters admitted witnessing some of the questionable behavior, he told investigators he was open to making drastic changes. The band leader's attorney tells CBS News that many of the things the report talks about occurred years or decades before his client was band director..... 'Every single student on our campus must be able to learn, to grow and to experience Ohio State in a safe and positive environment,' President Drake said. 'We will make this a better and safer institution. And we begin today.'"

The human creature is sometimes charming and intelligent and at other times bestial. When peer groups are not controlled by their proper overseers – teachers in school, parents in the home, policemen on the streets at night – the level of utter immaturity, criminal behavior, or simply inhumane behavior can descend to some very low levels. The striking thing to me is that this includes people who consider themselves to be “good” people, not just habitual bullies.

The kid on the playground who is angry at the world and attacks some small or timid student is at least partly mentally disturbed and perhaps in the unfortunate habit of getting away with beating up on his little sister or brother at home without the parents trying to discipline him. These people in school bands and football teams are not criminals for the most part, but are being influenced by their “group unity” to do something evil “because everybody does it.” Schools have in too many cases given up on their responsibility to rein in the misbehaving ringleaders and punish those who follow the villain as well, because once they participate in that kind of behavior they have made a choice to do something evil. “Because the others are doing it” was no excuse in the home I grew up in.

Humans have an evil side to their nature, and if you don't like the word evil, use mentally disturbed – lynch mobs in the South, gang banging on the streets, CIA operatives and Blackwater “security” forces doing some very cruel and unusual things to enemy fighters captured in Iraq – they do these things without a sense of guilt or pity for the victims. The difference between me and a “conservative” person is that the conservative will condone such behavior as “human” or even as “patriotism,” while I think it's the epitome of evil. People are capable of being better than that if they will simply think for themselves, rather than mindlessly following the leader into mischief. I'm glad to see this band director fired, no matter how good he was at his profession. He failed to do his duty in curbing the group excesses in his band. My band director in high school was a no nonsense teacher, and I remember him saying to us before we went to a football game that if we misbehaved while wearing the band uniform we would never wear it again. I always liked him. He was strict, but fair.





Lawn chemicals can stay in body for "years, even decades"
CBS NEWS July 25, 2014

The pesticides you use on your lawn to get rid of weeds and insects are part of a $10 billion-a-year industry. But some doctors are becoming more concerned about your exposure to those chemicals, CBS News correspondent Vinita Nair reports.

Joe Holland has been in the lawn care business for 30 years. His work requires him to be around a variety of chemicals, which is why he always tells his workers to take precautions.

"You always have to protect yourself when you're using any chemicals, no matter the grade," Holland said. "You have to wear a long sleeve shirt, long pants."

The chemicals his workers are using are known as herbicides and insecticides, designed to kill invasive plants and ward off bugs like mosquitoes. The most common chemicals used are glyphosate 2, 4-D, and permethrin.

Dr. Phil Landrigan, professor of pediatrics at New York's Mount Sinai Hospital, studies the effects of these chemicals on humans, in particular children and pregnant women.

"I think the fact that they have been around for a long time engenders a false sense of security," Landrigan said.

This week, he presented his findings at a congressional briefing on the health risks of overexposure.

"There is also concern that pesticides of all kinds can damage the developing nervous system and can result in learning disabilities in children, behavioral problems and possibly chronic diseases like Parkinson's," Landrigan said.

The doctor insists that some pesticides can stay in your system for years.

"Older pesticides like DDT can stay in the human body for years, even decades," Landrigan said.

But Dr. Josh Bloom of the American Council of Science and Health says these chemicals have been used in the U.S. for at least 60 years and pose no risk.

"There are so many hundreds of things more dangerous in everyday life than this that it is not even worth thinking about," Bloom said.

New York is one of many states that requires landscapers to put down flags, warning residents that a lawn has been freshly treated.

Joe Holland says his landscaping clients regularly ask about the chemicals he's using.

"The questions I get the most are 'when can my kids and my dog go out on the lawn' and my answer is usually 24 hours," Holland said. "If it doesn't get watered for two days, we recommend you don't go out there for two days."

There is no scientific standard about how long to stay off the lawn after it's treated. Landrigan wants to see that change. Joe Holland says he and his workers mark each lawn with flags and instruct homeowners when it's safe to venture out into their yards.




Dr. Phil Landrigan, professor of pediatrics at New York's Mount Sinai Hospital, studies the effects of these chemicals on humans, in particular children and pregnant women. "I think the fact that they have been around for a long time engenders a false sense of security," Landrigan said.... 'There is also concern that pesticides of all kinds can damage the developing nervous system and can result in learning disabilities in children, behavioral problems and possibly chronic diseases like Parkinson's,' Landrigan said.

But Dr. Josh Bloom of the American Council of Science and Health says these chemicals have been used in the U.S. for at least 60 years and pose no risk. 'There are so many hundreds of things more dangerous in everyday life than this that it is not even worth thinking about,' Bloom said.” I have to go with Landrigan and Joe Holland. Nerve damage and learning disabilities, “behavioral problems” -- these are not small problems. All it takes to prevent them is prudently following the proper precautions. Holland who works with toxic chemicals daily does not take the matter lightly. That is how the Vietnam era defoliant agent orange became such a problem – it wasn't considered to be that toxic to humans. Then thousands of soldiers developed alarming symptoms, which the army finally had to acknowledge. They now offer VA benefits for exposure to it.





Colorado River groundwater disappearing at "shocking" rate
By BECKY OSKIN LIVESCIENCE.COM July 25, 2014

As the Southwest's drought has worsened in the last decade, making surface water scarce, millions of people are drawing more heavily on underground water supplies. The water is coming out faster than it's being replenished, a new study finds.

Between December 2004 and November 2013, more than 75 percent of the water lost in the Colorado River Basin was from groundwater, according to the study. The region has been in a drought since 2000, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

The results show that groundwater is already being used to fill the gap between the demands of the region's millions of residents and farmers, and the available surface water supply, the researchers said. [Dry and Drying: See Images of Drought]

"We found a surprisingly high and long-term reliance on groundwater," study co-author Jay Famiglietti, senior water cycle scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, said in a statement.

For example, the amount of land irrigated by groundwater increased since the study began in December 2004, the researchers reported July 24 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The study offers a bird's-eye view of groundwater in the Colorado River Basin, one of the most heavily used and closely watched water resources in the West. More than 40 million people rely on Colorado River water in the United States alone (water is also allocated to Mexico), the U.S. Geologic Survey estimates.

"We thought the picture could be pretty bad, but this is shocking," lead study author Stephanie Castle, a water resource specialist at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.

The Colorado River Basin stretches across seven states: from Wyoming across Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California. Its groundwater is stored in underground aquifers and is sucked from the ground by wells. If water is removed from an aquifer faster than it can be replaced, eventually the wells will go dry.

Castle and her co-authors tracked groundwater loss in the basin with NASA's twin GRACE satellites (for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment). The satellites circle the Earth, monitoring the slight changes in Earth's gravity from increases or decreases in water. More water means more mass, which strengthens the pull of gravity on the satellites. (The satellites also track ice -- their original mission was to monitor the planet's polar ice sheets and melting glaciers.)

Since December 2004, the basin of the Colorado River lost nearly 53 million acre feet (65 cubic kilometers) of freshwater, almost double the volume of the region's largest reservoir, Nevada's Lake Mead, the researchers reported. About 75 percent of the total -- about 41 million acre feet (50 cubic km) -- came from groundwater, the study found.

"We don't know exactly how much groundwater we have left, so we don't know when we're going to run out," Castle said. "This is a lot of water to lose."




“As the Southwest's drought has worsened in the last decade, making surface water scarce, millions of people are drawing more heavily on underground water supplies. The water is coming out faster than it's being replenished, a new study finds.... The Colorado River Basin stretches across seven states: from Wyoming across Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California. Its groundwater is stored in underground aquifers and is sucked from the ground by wells.... Castle and her co-authors tracked groundwater loss in the basin with NASA's twin GRACE satellites (for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment). The satellites circle the Earth, monitoring the slight changes in Earth's gravity from increases or decreases in water. More water means more mass, which strengthens the pull of gravity on the satellites. (The satellites also track ice -- their original mission was to monitor the planet's polar ice sheets and melting glaciers.)”

The years long drought in California was in the news in the last six months or so, with the news website showing the soil deeply cracked due to loss of ground water. At the time there was a statement that several desalination plants are now in use or are under construction. I think we need to move up the construction of such plants. There will need to be a way of conveying water from the ocean to inland locations, I would think, such as pipelines. We have pipelines for oil already, so we should use the same technology for water. I think we could look at Middle Eastern countries and other arid places to see what methods they use to bring in water. A glance at the subject on the Internet just now pointed toward reuse of water with purification techniques, advanced high tech irrigation including irrigation recovery, the building of large underground reservoirs, water pipelines and desalination which are now in use in various Middle Eastern locations. I think it's time the US put great efforts toward such innovations here. We shouldn't wait until it becomes a national emergency, as it will when global warming continues.