Monday, October 6, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Why are people leaving the workforce? – CBS
By KIM PETERSON MONEYWATCH October 6, 2014, 5:38 AM

America's jobs picture is seeing huge improvement, with robust numbers that are giving investors confidence in the economy. The U.S. added 248,000 jobs last month, bringing the unemployment rate below 6 percent.

But one part of that picture is still a puzzle: People continue to stop looking for work, and in doing so, are dropping out of the labor pool. In fact, the participation rate in the labor force has fallen to 62.7 percent -- its lowest level since early 1978.

How can this be? As the job market heats up and the unemployment rate falls, wouldn't that mean more people are looking for work, not less?

"The decline is without precedent," Bob Funk, chief executive of global staffing company Express Employment Professionals, told CBS MoneyWatch. Government tracking of employment statistics go back to 1948, he said, "and a decline like this has never happened since then."

There's no clear reason why people are leaving the workforce, and the issue has ignited a fierce debate among economists. One trend that they seem to agree on? About half of the decline is due to baby boomers entering their retirement years.

The other half of the decline gets a little fuzzy. Funk notes that some portion of the unemployed either don't want to work or don't think they can find a job. His company commissioned a poll of the unemployed in May, he said, and found that 47 percent have completely given up looking for work. "That's a real problem," he said.

The labor force participation rate was around 66 percent of the population in 2007 before falling to 62.7 percent.

Some economists say the expansion of food stamp and disability programs are keeping people out of the labor pool. Others says that young people are dropping out, partly because more are going to college and partly because the ones who aren't are getting crowded out of the job market.

The recession drove many out of the workplace, and there aren't enough job opportunities to bring them off of the sidelines, says Chad Stone, chief economist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Don't expect the rate to rise anytime soon, say researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in a recent paper. They're expecting further declines over the next decade or so. The youngest baby boomers are still in their early 50s, the researchers say, so boomers will be dropping out of the job market for years to come.

On the plus side, the researchers said, those job openings created by retiring baby boomers could open up more opportunities for younger adults and less-educated workers.

So what's the long-term impact of a falling participation rate? The economy needs the labor pool to start growing again, says Doug Handler, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight. The weak labor market cannot support many more months in which jobs grow by 200,000 or more. "We may not be able to fight the effects of time and age, but we need the share of the population who can work to at least stabilize," he added.

Funk at Express Employment Professionals says the drop in the labor force is masking how high unemployment actually is. "For society, fewer people working means less revenue for the government and higher outlays on social programs," he adds. "It also means there are fewer people paying into Social Security and Medicare, at a time when both programs are already running out of money due to the baby boomer retirement."




“In fact, the participation rate in the labor force has fallen to 62.7 percent -- its lowest level since early 1978.... Government tracking of employment statistics go back to 1948, he said, "and a decline like this has never happened since then." There's no clear reason why people are leaving the workforce, and the issue has ignited a fierce debate among economists. One trend that they seem to agree on? About half of the decline is due to baby boomers entering their retirement years.... His company commissioned a poll of the unemployed in May, he said, and found that 47 percent have completely given up looking for work. "That's a real problem," he said.... Some economists say the expansion of food stamp and disability programs are keeping people out of the labor pool. Others says that young people are dropping out, partly because more are going to college and partly because the ones who aren't are getting crowded out of the job market. The recession drove many out of the workplace, and there aren't enough job opportunities to bring them off of the sidelines, says Chad Stone, chief economist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.... Funk at Express Employment Professionals says the drop in the labor force is masking how high unemployment actually is.”

“On the plus side, the researchers said, those job openings created by retiring baby boomers could open up more opportunities for younger adults and less-educated workers.” I propose the US Department of Labor set up many job fairs across the country, to which local employers are invited. Local news outlets could be encouraged to make announcements on TV, in the newspaper, and on the radio. The local federal government site WorkSource is now, in my opinion, the best source of genuine local jobs, and does sometimes hold job fairs. When I searched under the term “jobs” just now I got mainly the sites like Monster and other smaller ones. I didn't get WorkSource. WorkSource needs to set up “jobs” as one of its search terms. Not everybody who needs a job is applying for unemployment payments, and won't know about WorkSource.

Goodwill Industries also has a job center called “Job Junction,” and will help with the writing of resumes and even give anyone who needs it a suit of interview clothing, and the job seeker can use their computers to search the Internet for opportunities. For someone who wants more personal contact and a smaller environment than that at WorkSource, this may be helpful. Many people are thoroughly intimidated by the prospect of “selling themselves” to an employer and need personal help. People who have been unemployed for a long time may be especially demoralized by their joblessness. It has long been reported that the drop in the labor pool is largely due to this situation. People have simply given up.

I also object to the fact that there are so few opportunities nowadays to meet face to face with a real person in your job search, as everything is done through computers. This is due to a change in businesses, who just don't advertise in the newspapers anymore giving a number to call for an interview. The only access to most companies is through their website. I have heard that many or even most businesses use a computer to search through the resumes they receive, using phrases from their job description, which the individual who is looking for work won't know unless the business publishes the job description, so it's really like playing the lottery to get your resume noticed.

One job coach here in Jacksonville, with the AARP local office, recommends bypassing the computer listings entirely other than WorkSource, instead walking in to the front desk of targeted businesses without an appointment. The applicant should speak pleasantly to the secretary there, giving a two minute rundown of his most impressive qualifications, giving her his business card and asking who the hiring manager is. He should memorize his spiel ahead of time and practice it until there is no hesitancy in delivery. . He should make a note of the manager's and the secretary's names. When he gets home he should write the secretary a thank you note and write a short introductory letter with a brief rundown of his qualifications to the hiring manager. The next day, call the office and remind the secretary of his previous visit, asking for an “informational interview.” The appointment will be a chance to talk to the manager about specific skills and present a resume, with yet another business card. Ask him if he is aware of any openings at his or other businesses using those skills. After the interview write the manager a thank you note. This procedure cuts through the anonymous quality of a resume. It's hard to stand out from the crowd.

The other thing for the job seeker to do is hand out business cards all over town as he goes about daily activities and among acquaintances, talking about job opportunities to everybody, even the grocery store checkout clerk. Shy people have a problem with this kind of job hunt, but I have noticed that the more often I open up in this way the less shy I become. Joining a professional organization or a “Job Club” is also recommended, and of course hand out the business card there, too, while asking about opportunities. I have heard that only a small percentage of job openings are actually advertised, and one to one conversation can often reveal such an opening. Hopefully many unemployed Americans will get jobs soon, through these methods.





Democratic congressman predicts more departures at Secret Service – CBS
By REBECCA KAPLAN FACE THE NATION October 5, 2014

The top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said he expects there will be more departures from the Secret Service as an investigation into the agency begins.

The director, Julia Pierson, resigned Wednesday after a series of high-profile security lapses affecting both the White House and President Obama came to light.

"It did not begin with her and it's not going to end with her leaving," Cummings said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday. "There's still people that probably need to go."

"I think there's culture that has developed, the culture of complacency - we see it with these security breaches," he added.

Cummings, who was one of the members that grilled Pierson at a Capitol Hill hearing last week, said the information he has received from whistleblowers suggests the problem "goes back a ways."

"You had agents that were basically afraid, that the information that they wanted to impart to the top person would never get there. They were fearful that there would be retaliation," he said, adding that he "never thought that the Secret Service would have those kinds of issues."

Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and the agency's general counsel will take over the internal review that is being conducted following an incident in which a man jumped the fence at the White House, entered the unlocked doors and ran all the way to the East Room before being apprehended.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said he plans to appoint a panel of independent experts to to review the incident, and several members of Congress have called for an independent, top-to-bottom review of the agency.

"We've got to look at certain things, like, training. There's been a reduction in training. Again, morale. ... Things of that nature," Cummings said.

He said that 85 percent of all African Americans that approach him say they believe President Obama is not protected well because he is black, an idea that Cummings says he doesn't agree with.

"We have information that this goes all the way back to the Bush administration. A lot of the problems that we are talking about now, it's just that they are coming to light. A lot of these things existed before our President Obama," he said.

Cummings added that members of the president's staff have told him they feel very comfortable now that Joseph Clancy, formerly Special Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protective Division of the Secret Service, will take over the agency until a new director is appointed.




The top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said he expects there will be more departures from the Secret Service as an investigation into the agency begins.... "I think there's culture that has developed, the culture of complacency - we see it with these security breaches," he added.... Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and the agency's general counsel will take over the internal review that is being conducted.... several members of Congress have called for an independent, top-to-bottom review of the agency. 'We've got to look at certain things, like, training. There's been a reduction in training. Again, morale. ... Things of that nature,' Cummings said....”

In a primarily peaceful environment, which the US is at this time, complacency can take over. The fact that the front door to the White House wasn't locked and the alarm bell was silenced does look like complacency. Also the group of agents who hired a prostitute to come to their room, drank too much to be alert and then got into a loud row because they foolishly didn't pay the woman what she asked, shows not only a lack of oversight but, again, an inadequate awareness of the danger the country now faces from not only terrorists but right wing nut jobs like the guy who jumped the fence. There are also racists out there who would like to shoot the president. According to Cummings, “85 percent of all African Americans that approach him say they believe President Obama is not protected well because he is black, an idea that Cummings says he doesn't agree with.” The conspiracy theory of Kennedy's assassination that most rang true to me was that right wing forces in the US were behind the shooting, rather than a rather lonely Communist who had recently spent time in Cuba. Cuba and Communists were the favorite bad guys in those days, but the “military-industrial complex” had the most to lose under Kennedy. I have had a fear that with so much antipathy being expressed by uneducated white people toward Obama, one of them would try to assassinate him. The Tea Party would never advocate such a thing, but they attract a crowd who might.





Republicans still calling for U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS October 5, 2014, 3:07 PM

President Obama has been adamant that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL), saying American forces will degrade the group using airstrikes while regional partners fight the extremists on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Some Republicans, though, have insisted American ground troops will eventually be necessary, and they've chided the president for taking that option off the table.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, said Sunday on "Face the Nation" that U.S. Special Forces will likely need to be deployed to determine the efficacy of the air campaign.

"I think Special Forces and others are probably going to have to be on the ground," he said, "because after those missiles hit and they get out of those Humvees, they repaint their trucks, we have got to know where they are, and are the hits being successful?"

"I don't think we should ever sit back and tell our enemies what we will and will not do," he explained. "If we need Special Forces there, if that's what the generals say, then we need to do it. If we engage in a conflict that we know this is a threat to America, we should make it so one-sided that it gets over very quickly. So, we should have everything on the table to make sure we win this."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who has long derided the president's approach to ISIS as a day late and a dollar short, warned that U.S. reliance on regional partners to fight the ground war against ISIS is foolhardy.

"At the end of the day, you cannot destroy ISIL in Syria without a ground component," he told CNN on Sunday. "And what we're doing with the Free Syrian Army is militarily unsound...this mythical Arab army that we're trying to get up to go in on the ground in Syria will need a lot of American hand-holding. And if it takes a year before we can go to Mosul, I can only imagine how strong [ISIS] will be."

Graham called on the president to "level with the American people."

"You need boots on the ground," he said. "American soldiers need to go back to Syria and Iraq as part of a coalition. And we're going to need more than 4,000 to destroy [ISIS] in Iraq and Syria.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., did not specifically address the question of U.S. combat troops during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," but she warned that the president may not have the political will to implement a muscular strategy to fight ISIS with midterm elections looming.

"I'm very fearful that as we look at the current military strategy that it is surrounding the November elections and that he won't have the resolve to follow through with what needs to be done in a sustained effort to destroy ISIS," she said.

Democrats, though, have held fast to the administration's message - no American ground troops in combat roles against ISIS, period.

"There will be troops on the ground," Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, told CNN on Sunday. "There are over 200,000 Iraqi national security forces. There are Kurdish Peshmerga forces."

After CNN's Candy Crowley raised Graham's concern that U.S. partners fighting ISIS on the ground are not be ready for primetime - and may not be ready for some time - Reed replied, "That's absolutely true."

But the Rhode Island senator said Gen. John Allen, who's been tasked with leading the anti-ISIS coalition, would ably oversee the "rejuvenation" of the Iraqi military and other U.S. partners who are fighting ISIS militants.




Democrats continue to support Obama's position that there are enough soldiers in the areas that are combating ISIS, but I tend to agree with the Republicans that this isn't true. That is because the coalition of Arabic states who have agreed to oppose ISIS are mainly volunteering to send more airplanes rather than soldiers on the ground. The Kurds sturdily continue to fight on the ground but the US is not arming them with heavy weapons, perhaps because they have made a stand for autonomy in several Middle Eastern countries, which makes places like Turkey leery of them out of concern for what they might do after the war is over. To me they have acquitted themselves well so far, including against Saddam Hussein, and should be rewarded with more effective military aid than a few bandages and rifles. So I am basically with the Republicans on this.





Supreme Court To Weigh Facebook Threats, Religious Freedom, Discrimination – NPR
by NINA TOTENBERG
October 06, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court opens a new term Monday, but so far the justices are keeping quiet about whether or when they will tackle the gay marriage question. Last week, the justices met behind closed doors to discuss pending cases, but when they released the list of new cases added to the calendar, same-sex marriage was nowhere to be seen.

But that really doesn't mean very much.

About 2,000 cases have piled up over the summer, each seeking review on all manner of subjects. So when the court met last week to sift through all that, there really wasn't enough time for the justices, as a group, to focus on the same-sex marriage cases. With a big issue like this, and multiple appeals before the court, the justices need to decide which cases are the "best vehicles" (as it's known in the trade) for review. Indeed, all of the vehicle talk prompted one media wag to comment last week that all of the flossy lawyers, each pointing to their own case as the best vehicle, sounded more like car salesmen than Supreme Court advocates.

With seven cases currently before the court, the justices will likely pick just one or two to hear. They might, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested earlier this fall, even wait for more cases. Right now, the only cases pending before the court are lower court decisions favoring the right of same-sex couples to marry. But a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel, which heard arguments last August in Ohio, sounded as if it might go the other way. If it does, that would provide the kind of traditional conflict the Supreme Court looks to resolve.

Truth be told, with both sides already pressing the court to act, most court observers think the justices will want to take the plunge sooner rather than later. For now, though, all is speculation.

This term will mark the 10th year that John Roberts has served as chief justice. Without a doubt, the court has grown dramatically more conservative since his appointment. But, as Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center observes, the question is: "What role has John Roberts played in this movement?" Is he "strategically and deliberately leading the court to the right?" Kendall asks, "Or is it, as some have suggested, the 'Kennedy Court' or even the 'Alito Court'?" Justice Anthony Kennedy is often referred to as the "swing justice," and has written many of the court's major 5-to-4 opinions. Justice Samuel Alito is far more conservative than the justice he replaced, Sandra Day O'Connor, and has cast many votes and written major opinions that have shifted the court in a more conservative direction.

The issues on the docket this term range from race and religion cases, to pregnancy discrimination, and even to threats on Facebook.

But once again the court, responding to challenges brought by conservatives, has chosen to delve into some elections issues that had been thought long settled. In a case from Arizona, the court could prevent the increasing use of citizen commissions to draw congressional district lines. Arizona, California and some other states have, in one way or another, used these commissions to take the redistricting issue out of the hands of self-interested state legislatures. But in Arizona, where the independent commission was enacted by referendum, the Republican-controlled Legislature is now challenging the practice as unconstitutional.

In a case that could dramatically alter the way judicial elections are conducted, the court will decide whether states that elect judges can bar judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Of the 39 states with judicial elections, 30 have such bans. The test case is from Florida, where the state Supreme Court upheld that state's ban on the grounds that allowing judicial candidates to personally solicit campaign contributions would raise questions about their impartiality on the bench. Those challenging the ban say it violates their free speech rights.

Another free speech case involves the question of what constitutes a threat on Facebook. The facts are pretty hairy. Anthony Elonis was convicted of making threats against his estranged wife and an FBI agent. His posts said things like, "I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts."

Soon he moved on to suggest that he might make "a name" for himself with a school shooting. "Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class. The only question is ... which one?"

At that point, a female FBI agent paid him a visit, which provoked a post in which he said that he'd had to control himself not to "slit her throat, leave her bleeding from her jugular in the arms of her partner."

At Elonis' trial, the judge instructed the jurors that to convict, they had to conclude that this was not merely exaggeration. His Facebook posts needed to be statements that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury. Elonis contended that he was just mimicking rap songs — indeed, he often linked to songs with his post. He argued that he should not be convicted without actual proof that he intended to threaten, intimidate or harm.

The intent standard that Elonis argued for might make it much more difficult to win a conviction for making illegal threats. But whatever rule the justices come up with, observes University of Virginia law professor Leslie Kendrick, it will likely apply not just to Facebook and Twitter, but to all forms of communication — including people speaking face to face or publishing in the newspaper. In other words, says Kendrick, when crafting a rule, the justices will ask if the standard "is going to chill people who engage in speech that is borderline but ultimately protected."

Protected, that is, by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Most court experts seem to believe that Elonis may win because of the culture of today's social media. "The context of rap music these days suggests that what Elonis put out there really isn't all that unusual for what's going on on Facebook and what's going on in the popular culture," says professor William Marshall of the University of North Carolina School of Law.

After all, the current Supreme Court may be viewed as conservative, but it has, with little or no dissent, already upheld a fair amount of "fringe speech" — whether it's crush videos, demonstrations at military funerals or the sale of violent video games to kids.

Not everyone, however, agrees that the Facebook threat case is in the same category. Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre notes that Elonis' posts "ticked off all the boxes" — domestic violence, school shootings, violence against a federal officer. Garre says he "wouldn't be surprised if [Elonis' Facebook posts] struck the justices as something very problematic."

A different part of the First Amendment — the free exercise of religion — is at issue in two cases involving federal statutes. One case tests whether retailer Abercrombie & Fitch illegally discriminated against a Muslim woman when she was denied a job because her headscarf conflicted with the company's dress code. The other case tests Arkansas' refusal to allow a Muslim prisoner to wear a short beard for religious purposes.

The prisoner sued under a federal law aimed at shoring up prisoners' religious rights. Interestingly, in this case, the prisoner has the backing of a wide variety of corrections officials and organizations, plus the federal government. The federal prison system and 43 states allow beards, largely because it is much easier to hide weapons and other contraband in clothes, hair and body cavities.

There is a similar coalition of strange bedfellows in a pregnancy discrimination case before the court. Anti-abortion and women's rights groups have joined together to urge the court to require employers to treat pregnancy the same way other temporary disabilities are treated on the job. In this case, a UPS driver asked for light duty, carrying less than 20 pounds, during the latter part of her pregnancy. But the company refused, and she lost both her job and her insurance coverage.

The company contends that it had "no animus" toward the employee because of her pregnancy; her request for light duty just wasn't covered by either the provisions of federal disability law or the union contract. She argues that she should have been covered under the 1978 federal law barring discrimination based on pregnancy.

The case is very important for businesses because pregnancy accommodations cost money. But it's very important to women too, observes Emily Martin of the National Women's Law Center. "Lots of women with some sort of work limitation arising out of pregnancy face similar issues — especially women in low-wage jobs that are often more physically demanding," she says.

The first case the court hears on Monday is one that amazes former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who wants to know: "How in the world did we go 225 years and not have this issue decided?" The issue is whether police may make a traffic stop based on a mistaken understanding of the law, and then use evidence from a subsequent search to convict the car's occupants of a crime.

Other controversies to look forward to include cases that involve racial gerrymandering and Medicaid funding, and a major housing discrimination case that could make it harder to prove discrimination.

The court will even be tackling a case about fish — yes, fish! It's an obstruction of justice case that, depending on your point of view, involves either the deliberate concealment of illegal fishing or a classic example of prosecutorial overreach. More to come on that later.




“The issues on the docket this term range from race and religion cases, to pregnancy discrimination, and even to threats on Facebook.... But once again the court, responding to challenges brought by conservatives, has chosen to delve into some elections issues that had been thought long settled... the court could prevent the increasing use of citizen commissions to draw congressional district lines.... Another free speech case involves the question of what constitutes a threat on Facebook..... The intent standard that Elonis argued for might make it much more difficult to win a conviction for making illegal threats....”

The article also includes cases about religious rights, women's pregnancy related rights and the “deliberate concealment of illegal fishing.” The last case may not seem important, but commercial overfishing has become a serious problem, causing near extinction in some species. The most important issue I see in this article is the increasing number of cases preventing the use of citizens committees do describe voting districts rather than the politically biased congressional decisions that have so often resulted in gerrymandering based on where the black people and other Democrats live. If the Democrats are using the same technique to guarantee their dominance in Congress, shame on them too. Citizens' committees sound like a very good idea to me.





As Populations Shift, Democrats Hope To Paint The Sun Belt Blue – NPR
by DEBBIE ELLIOTT
October 03, 2014

The Democratic National Committee is running a Spanish language ad on radio stations in North Carolina and Georgia, where there are competitive U.S. Senate races.

"Republicans think we're going to stay home," the ad says. "It's time to rise up."

Democrats see opportunity in Southern states with fast-growing minority populations and an influx of people relocating to the Sun Belt. In Georgia, there's a push to register new voters in hopes of turning a red state blue.

Becks Nix spends most weekends at festivals, like the Fall Festival at Atlanta's Candler Park, working a voter registration booth for the gay rights group Georgia Equality.

"Are y'all registered Georgia voters?" Nix asks passersby.

Anastasia Fort says she needs to check because she just moved to a new neighborhood. Nix tells her how to make sure she's on the voter rolls.

"Because things are tight," Nix says, "we feel like it's even more important that people are not only registered but are actively engaged in what's going on."

Fort admits she's not so engaged. Her friend Steve Stuglin is shocked.

"You're not following? I mean Michelle Nunn's got a chance," he says.

Michelle Nunn is the Democrat in a tight race with Republican David Perdue for an open U.S. Senate seat. Stuglin moved here from Detroit six years ago, bringing his Democratic politics with him. He says Democrats could make gains in Georgia if their voters would just turn out.

"They think it's a lost cause, it's never gonna happen, it's a red state, just deal with it," Stuglin says.

But Democratic operatives say Georgia's days as a reliably red state are nearing an end, in part driven by demographics.

In 2000, 75 percent of Georgia's electorate was white. Now it's just more than 60 percent white.

"While demography can be destiny, destiny needs help," says Democrat state Rep. Stacey Abrams. She's House minority leader in the Georgia Assembly, and founder of the New Georgia Project, an aggressive campaign to register minority voters.

"There are 800,000 unregistered African-American, Latino and Asian voters in the state of Georgia," Abrams says.

Asian Americans are the fastest growing minority in the South, with Latinos close behind. Both groups have settled in Atlanta's bustling suburbs.

The New Georgia Project has been canvassing door to door and conducting drives to sign up voters. Abrams says they've registered 87,000.

Georgia doesn't register by party, but the group has targeted populations that tend to vote Democratic.

The question is, will they?

Along with the Senate race, Georgia also has a tightly fought contest for governor. Democrat Jason Carter, President Jimmy Carter's grandson, is challenging the Republican incumbent Nathan Deal.

Emory University political scientist Andra Gillespie says Republicans still have the edge in Georgia. She doesn't expect this Democratic new-voter push to bear fruit this cycle, even though the registration numbers are impressive.

"The more important number for me is not whether or not you register 87,000 people to vote," she says. "It's whether or not you can get those 87,000 people to the polls."

Carter, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, spent last Sunday urging voter turnout in African-American churches around Atlanta.

He says what's happening here can alter the political landscape.

"Georgia is changing dramatically," Carter says. "There's no doubt that Georgia is next in line as a national battleground state."

Republicans are taking note of the change. Gov. Deal also campaigned at an African-American church in Macon on Sunday, and appeared at a school last week with the rapper Ludacris.

Deal spokesman Brian Robinson says Republicans have to expand their electorate.

"That is our battle," Robinson says. "Changing the way people identify themselves by party over the next 20 to 30 years."

On the front line of that battle is Leo Smith, minority-engagement director for the state GOP. For the past year, he's been touting Republican values.

"These are ideas of liberty and freedom that Grandmama and them used to talk about," he says. "God bless the child that's got his own. Keep the man outta your house. Man don't work, man don't eat. All those were sort of black value systems that I grew up with that sound really Republican."

Smith acknowledges his work is cut out as he sits in the state GOP office surrounded with portraits of the top Republican office holders in Georgia — all white men.



"'Because things are tight," Nix says, "we feel like it's even more important that people are not only registered but are actively engaged in what's going on.'... 'While demography can be destiny, destiny needs help,' says Democrat state Rep. Stacey Abrams. She's House minority leader in the Georgia Assembly, and founder of the New Georgia Project, an aggressive campaign to register minority voters. 'There are 800,000 unregistered African-American, Latino and Asian voters in the state of Georgia,' Abrams says.... The New Georgia Project has been canvassing door to door and conducting drives to sign up voters. Abrams says they've registered 87,000. Georgia doesn't register by party, but the group has targeted populations that tend to vote Democratic. The question is, will they?... Republicans are taking note of the change. Gov. Deal also campaigned at an African-American church in Macon on Sunday, and appeared at a school last week with the rapper Ludacris. Deal spokesman Brian Robinson says Republicans have to expand their electorate. 'That is our battle,' Robinson says. 'Changing the way people identify themselves by party over the next 20 to 30 years.'”

Republicans are going to have to do more than visit a black church and talk in slogans that they think will resonate with black people. They are going to have to stop backing the war against the poor in this country that involves unfair electoral practices, violent policing, racist statements that get into the news, the protection of the very wealthy from a proper taxation system both in Social Security taxes and the income tax rates, and attacks on the public school system.

Meanwhile the Democrats need to go into the minority communities more and register voters, giving transportation or absentee ballots to those who need them, and give pep talks to encourage minority activism. A community is more powerful than an individual. The more involved people are before the election, the more enthusiastic they will be. Bored or hopelessly discouraged people too often aren't going to go to the polls to vote.





Q&A: Plumbing The Mysteries Of The Teenage Brain – NPR
by ANYA KAMENETZ
October 04, 2014

Do you remember the summer when you first fell in love? The songs that were playing on the radio, butterflies in the stomach, the excitement of a stolen kiss? The tendency of our brains to especially hold onto memories from the teenage years is called the "reminiscence bump."

It's one of the many distinctive characteristics of the adolescent brain that psychologist Laurence Steinberg lays out in his new book,Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence.

Steinberg teaches at Temple University. As an expert on adolescent development, his testimony has contributed to Supreme Court decisions abolishing the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for juvenile offenders.

In Age of Opportunity, he argues that in the last decade, neuroscience has established that the brain remains "plastic," that is, changeable, well into the early 20s. His experiments have shown that adolescents respond differently to rewards, are more likely to take risks and are more sensitive to peers than adults. But he argues that our education, legal system, and our parenting have yet to incorporate these insights.

This book makes the case that for all the current focus on the growth that occurs between ages zero to three, ages 12 to 25 may be just as important for shaping the future of individuals and society.

I'm all in favor of high-quality preschool. But the way that it's discussed is that it's some kind of inoculation.

In fact, for interventions that promote these non-cognitive skills, adolescence is just as good a time as early childhood.

By non-cognitive skills, you're talking about qualities known as "grit" — perseverance, self-motivation. But you say in the book that these are actually neither precisely "non-cognitive" nor precisely "skills."

I think it's a bad phrase. I think the experts agree about what they are, but they're better thought of as capacities that are cultivated than skills that are taught.

There isn't a single trait that's more important for success in the workplace than kids' self-control. We know that from many, many studies.

And what is it that happens in the teenage years that makes it such a critical, formative period for developing self-control?

As we know, experience can play a very important role in shaping the brain. Not only in the present but with respect to how kids are going to learn in the future.

And I think that science suggests that it's important for kids to be challenged and exposed to novelty in order to facilitate healthy development of brain systems that are important for things like self-regulation.

You explain that adolescent brains are more sensitive to the "dopamine squirts" that come from rewards, be they sex, drugs, candy or money. This, combined with less-developed inhibition, is what makes them more likely to seek out challenges, novelty — in a word, risk.

We're hard-wired to be risk-takers as adolescents. The dark side of this is why societies from ours to ISIL recruit people this age to do the dirty work. [Young adults are] more interested in the immediate rewards than the long term consequences.

You say that so-called character education, abstinence education or drug education programs like DARE, haven't been shown to be effective. Because it's not that adolescents don't intellectually understand the impact of this behavior, it's that they are too compelled by the rewards.

Exactly. But the other side of this is, let's let kids satisfy those urges in pro-social ways. We want them to sign up for that course where they're not guaranteed to get As, to try out for the school play, or even ask that person out.

How would you redesign high school to take advantage of current understanding of adolescent development?

First of all, I think we should think of high school as something that goes most of the day and doesn't stop at 3 p.m. We still run our school calendar and timetable as if we're an agrarian society in the beginning of the 20th century.

Give kids some choices: playing sports, arts, extra academic opportunities.

If kids are spending those hours unstructured and unsupervised, it's a recipe for experimenting with sex, drugs and delinquency. We know that kids are deterred when they're in settings with adults around.

The second thing I would do is to make high school more challenging. Now, for parents in the NPR audience, they're the ones who have kids in demanding schools. But there are far more high school graduates who need remediation than have ever taken a single AP class.

If we're talking about American education writ large, our schools are not very challenging. If only one in six students says she's ever taken a difficult class, this has more than just academic consequences. It's through challenge that kids develop things like determination and perseverance.

Any other changes you would make in high school?

I'd add some activities in the school day that research shows contribute to healthy brain development. For example, aerobic exercise, which is not part of the school day for a lot of kids. There have been schools that have had success with mindfulness training [meditation, yoga, tai chi].

And you say there may even be ways to explicitly teach qualities like self-control, empathy, and perseverance?

Most of the evidence for social-emotional learning programs comes from studies of kids with difficulties. It's a corrective. But I think there's no reason to think that it wouldn't work with kids who don't have behavioral problems.

Let's talk about peer pressure. Is it a myth?

We know that brain systems comprising the social brain are undergoing extensive development during adolescence. They're particularly attentive to the behaviors of other people, and peers especially.

The studies we've done at Temple have been to understand why adolescents engage in more risk taking with peers than alone. It's not so much that peers influence kids to take risks. It's that by activating their reward centers, peers make adolescents more sensitive to rewards in their immediate environment.

One example you use is that teen drivers are more likely to speed when they have teenage passengers.

Right, and this isn't true if they are riding with adults. But I think an important piece of our research has been misunderstood. Since peers activate the reward centers, there's plenty of reason to think that engaging in pro-social activity with their friends will make it more rewarding and desirable as well.

Like volunteer work? Or being on a sports team?

Yes. I think that for adolescents the presence of peers has a positive spillover regardless of what the activity is. So, in theory they should enjoy learning and other positive activities more if they're doing them with their friends.

So for this reason, you say that more group projects in high school might be a good idea.

Right. We often discourage group learning in school because we're very insistent in making sure we can assess individual levels of competency and mastery. But this may undermine students in some ways.

We often focus on the tough side of the teenage years — the idea that they're emotionally volatile ... drinking, smoking, acting up. And when people talk about "extended adolescence" or "delayed adulthood," that's usually thought of as a bad thing. But you have a different perspective.

There's this idea of meta-plasticity. That is the fact that the brain's degree of plasticity is itself a plastic characteristic of the brain. Certain experiences actually can increase the brain's plasticity, and they affect its capacity to be influenced in the future.

So the ability to keep learning, adapting and even experiencing the pleasures of youth, that's something we can and should cultivate and extend a little bit longer?

Well, there's got to be some ceiling. It wouldn't make evolutionary sense for the brain to be plastic forever. At some point you have to convert your brain portfolio from stocks to bonds. That's the shift from adolescence to adulthood.

But anything that keeps the brain plastic extends the period of being influenced by the environment. If you expose people to novelty and challenge, they're going to be able to learn and develop intellectually for a longer period.




Steinberg teaches at Temple University. As an expert on adolescent development, his testimony has contributed to Supreme Court decisions abolishing the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for juvenile offenders.... His experiments have shown that adolescents respond differently to rewards, are more likely to take risks and are more sensitive to peers than adults. But he argues that our education, legal system, and our parenting have yet to incorporate these insights....

“The teenage years are a time of developing 'grit,' perseverance, self-motivation, self control, as kids respond to rewards and peer group approval while taking more risks. That is usually why they get into trouble with the law, but its part of taking a new place in society. They're preparing to leave home and set up a life for themselves. They need to be steered toward things like getting an after school job and helping out in the house with chores, rather than joining gangs. psychologist Laurence Steinberg advocates encouraging the kids to join activities involving adults during their after school hours rather than going home and hanging out with other kids who don't have anything to do. “Give kids some choices: playing sports, arts, extra academic opportunities. If kids are spending those hours unstructured and unsupervised, it's a recipe for experimenting with sex, drugs and delinquency. We know that kids are deterred when they're in settings with adults around.”

Steinberg also says, “If we're talking about American education writ large, our schools are not very challenging. If only one in six students says she's ever taken a difficult class, this has more than just academic consequences. It's through challenge that kids develop things like determination and perseverance.” I couldn't have said it better myself. This man has done a psychology study to come up with some good common sense in dealing with that group of people who tend to really enjoy a challenge. That's why they are so confrontational with their parents. They are ready to begin breaking free of parental control. They need to be stimulated to greater effort by the school system. Besides, if the high schools don't give them a good founding educationally, and they don't go to an academic college rather than trade school of some kind, they will become the next generation of uneducated citizens and voters rather than an improved group. High school is supposed to teach as much of the basics as possible. That's why I'm so concerned about this hoopla among some conservatives surrounding the teaching of Common Core lessons.

“And you say there may even be ways to explicitly teach qualities like self-control, empathy, and perseverance? 'Most of the evidence for social-emotional learning programs comes from studies of kids with difficulties. It's a corrective. But I think there's no reason to think that it wouldn't work with kids who don't have behavioral problems.'” I hate to mention groups like Methodist Youth Fellowship, Girl Scouts, FFA in rural areas, as though they were new. They teach cooperation and kindness/empathy in human relations, which is definitely needed by this age group, as they are singularly prone to the more negative forms of group socialization on their own. Bullying, which is now receiving a national focus by many concerned people, is a direct result of unsupervised teen peer group interaction. What has made parents stop teaching these things?

“So, in theory they should enjoy learning and other positive activities more if they're doing them with their friends. So for this reason, you say that more group projects in high school might be a good idea. 'Right. We often discourage group learning in school because we're very insistent in making sure we can assess individual levels of competency and mastery. But this may undermine students in some ways.'” I remember from my high school years that those teachers who encouraged classroom discussion of the lessons were much better teachers – more receptive to each individual in the class, more challenging, more informative – and that I learned more in their class, too. If teachers are limiting this to use instead more memorization of facts, that's going backward to a harmful teaching philosophy which is less effective. Bored kids don't learn as well as those who are stimulated.

Finally, Steinberg talks about “extended adolescence” as in extending the “plasticity” of the brain. He says, “At some point you have to convert your brain portfolio from stocks to bonds. That's the shift from adolescence to adulthood. But anything that keeps the brain plastic extends the period of being influenced by the environment. If you expose people to novelty and challenge, they're going to be able to learn and develop intellectually for a longer period.” I have personally always believed in continuing to learn by reading and other mentally stimulating activity. Some people do this naturally, while others tend to stop the learning process. I think a more intelligent person will continue to learn almost as a compulsion. If, however, they become too heavily burdened with two jobs and six kids, they may not be able to do that. Also, if they join a bridge club and get their main social stimulus from people who are not really intellectually inclined, choosing instead to spend thousands of dollars on the décor of their home or on new clothing, they likewise may stop learning. However it is usually a choice people make and not a necessity in our society, where intellectuals are not jailed for anti-government activity. Maybe if kids were stimulated enough in high school to learn the pleasure of discovering new information they would automatically continue to do it, and daytime soap operas would become a thing of the past – so I hope, at any rate. Maybe the wave of the future will be the proliferation of reading clubs and debate societies, like the one that Benjamin Franklin started with a dozen or so friends in the 1700's. Of course, that was still “the Age of Enlightenment,” so such activities were considered normal and not “weird.”