Saturday, November 15, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Ferguson police radio calls surface from Michael Brown shooting
CBS NEWS November 14, 2014, 10:32 PM

FERGUSON, Mo. -- The Aug. 9 confrontation between a white police officer and an unarmed black teenager that ended with Officer Darren Wilson fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown lasted less than 90 seconds, according to emergency radio calls.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a timeline Friday night, based on an analysis of police and EMS calls. It begins at 11:29 a.m. with Wilson responding to another case.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market and a brief description of the suspect, who was believed to have taken a packet of cigars. Officers were told to look for a black male wearing a white T-shirt, running toward the QuikTrip convenience store. Additional information was soon added: the man was wearing a red Cardinals hat, khaki shorts and yellow socks; a second man was with him.

At noon, Wilson asked the officers searching for the robbery suspects if they needed assistance. An officer responded that the men had disappeared.

Two minutes later, at 12:02 p.m. Wilson radioed in, "Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car," a request for additional officers.

Sources have told the newspaper that prior to making that call, Wilson claimed he told Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson to stop walking in the street. Wilson said it was after that that he recognized that Brown matched the robbery suspect's description, called for backup and stopped his SUV next to the two men.

What happened next remains unclear.

Wilson claimed the teenager attacked him. Some witnesses have said Wilson and Brown struggled, either outside or inside the officer's vehicle. Others say they saw Brown with his hands over his head, getting on the ground.

At 12:03 p.m., a witness sent a tweet that read, "I JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE."

Within moments, other officers arrived on scene, and an ambulance was called. One officer erroneously said someone had been hit by a Taser,

The last radio call the Post-Dispatch mentions was made at 12:07 p.m. An unidentified officer says, "Get us several more units over here. There's gonna be a problem." A woman is crying in the background.

Brown's death touched off weeks of protests in the predominately black St. Louis suburb against Ferguson's government and police force, which are almost entirely white. Some of the demonstrations turned violent, prompting a highly militarized show of force by local, county and state law enforcement.

A grand jury is expected to decide this month whether Wilson should face criminal charges. Ferguson and other communities in the St. Louis area are bracing for more protests if Wilson is not indicted, with both Missouri Gov. Jay NixonMissouri Gov. Jay Nixon and Brown's family urging people to stay calm.




“At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a "stealing in progress' at the Ferguson Market and a brief description of the suspect, who was believed to have taken a packet of cigars.... At noon, Wilson asked the officers searching for the robbery suspects if they needed assistance. An officer responded that the men had disappeared. Two minutes later, at 12:02 p.m. Wilson radioed in, 'Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car,' a request for additional officers.... Wilson said it was after that that he recognized that Brown matched the robbery suspect's description, called for backup and stopped his SUV next to the two men. What happened next remains unclear. Wilson claimed the teenager attacked him. Some witnesses have said Wilson and Brown struggled, either outside or inside the officer's vehicle. Others say they saw Brown with his hands over his head, getting on the ground.... At 12:03 p.m., a witness sent a tweet that read, 'I JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE.' Within moments, other officers arrived on scene, and an ambulance was called. One officer erroneously said someone had been hit by a Taser. The last radio call the Post-Dispatch mentions was made at 12:07 p.m. An unidentified officer says, 'Get us several more units over here. There's gonna be a problem.' A woman is crying in the background.”

The whole event was over within three minutes, and witness reports are wildly different. Wilson did radio for help, but he didn't wait for it to arrive before he confronted the men. It is my opinion that officers who put themselves in danger without good reason – there was no emergency here – invite the situation of a shooting as they act essentially in self-defense. If Brown did in fact try to grab the officer's weapon, that will make a difference to me in the way Wilson should be judged in the killing. Another thing that I think should change in policing is that when an alert goes out for the simple theft of something as cheap as a box of cigars, and the theft was not armed robbery, officers should be restrained from using deadly force to capture them. Neither man had a gun or knife. Police need to work with sufficient backup to prevent a case of self-defense from occurring, and use non-lethal force when they can. If someone has a gun aimed at them, they do have to shoot. The Grand Jury will act within a few days now, and there will be a decision to the accusations aimed at Wilson. I'll follow the stories as they come out.





Student found unconscious at WVU fraternity dies
CBS/AP November 14, 2014, 4:41 PM

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. -- A West Virginia University student found unconscious and not breathing at a fraternity house died Friday, a day after the school ordered a halt to all activities at fraternities and sororities, officials said.

Nolan Michael Burch, 18, died two days after officers were called to the Kappa Sigma house and found someone performing CPR on him. His death was confirmed by Amy Johns, a spokeswoman for WVU Healthcare. Burch was being treated at the system's Ruby Memorial Hospital.

Friends and family made the five-hour journey from Burch's home in Williamsville, New York, to the hospital to be with him. Burch was a freshman majoring in pre-sport management, CBS affiliate WDTV reported.

The school's Inter-Fraternity Council and Panhellenic Council were organizing a candlelight vigil in Burch's honor Friday evening, according to CBS affiliate WOWK.

Dominic Parisi, 18, who graduated from Canisius High School in Buffalo with Burch, said his friend played hockey and lacrosse and that he had committed to a college before anyone else at their high school.

"He knew he wanted to go to WVU before anyone else," Parisi said. "This was where he wanted to be."

The Morgantown chapter of Kappa Sigma had been suspended since mid-October because of other violations of the fraternity's code of conduct, according to a press release from Leo Brown, director of chapter services at Kappa Sigma.

The chapter and WVU were notified on Monday, prior to the incident involving Burch, that the group's charter had been withdrawn and its operations had been closed.

"While we investigate, the fraternity is focused on working with the university to ensure that the proper support and counseling is available to the individual members of our former chapter," the statement from Kappa Sigma said, WOWK reported.

Meanwhile, the group's charter has been withdrawn and its operations closed, Brown said.

The suspended fraternity activity at WVU is in place indefinitely. The suspension follows Wednesday's incident as well as a Nov. 6 incident in which three students were arrested and 16 were cited by Morgantown police for causing a late-night disturbance in Morgantown's South Park neighborhood.

Police are investigating both incidents.

WVU President E. Gordon Gee also announced Burch's death in a press release.

"The outpouring of love and support from his friends and this community has been what you would expect from Mountaineers, and I would ask that you continue to keep the Burch family and many friends in your thoughts and prayers," he said.




“The Morgantown chapter of Kappa Sigma had been suspended since mid-October because of other violations of the fraternity's code of conduct, according to a press release from Leo Brown, director of chapter services at Kappa Sigma. The chapter and WVU were notified on Monday, prior to the incident involving Burch, that the group's charter had been withdrawn and its operations had been closed.... The suspended fraternity activity at WVU is in place indefinitely. The suspension follows Wednesday's incident as well as a Nov. 6 incident in which three students were arrested and 16 were cited by Morgantown police for causing a late-night disturbance in Morgantown's South Park neighborhood.”

College Students have traditionally had university sanctioned fraternities to join for brotherhood. Unfortunately I never hear that they have done fund raisers for the needy or competed to win a championship for the best grades on campus. In fact, they are known throughout the colleges in this country for binge drinking, sex parties and excluding the poor, religious minorities and non-whites, plus any number of others who just aren't cool enough. The hazing incidents are the worst, though. I remember one instance when a freshman pledge was literally forced by a gang of members to drink a huge amount of alcohol, and ended up with alcohol poisoning. He died, and his family was distraught. High profile peer groups are known for hazing. To join such a prestigious group you have to suffer stupid humiliation and abuse. You really have to blend in like custard pudding or you will be blackballed. See the http://totalfratmove.com/5-types-of-blackballed-pledges/5/ article below, called 5 Types Of BlackBalled Pledges.

Fraternities add nothing useful to college life, unless it is the “brotherhood” that comes in handy later when you are setting up a law practice. Such contacts can smooth your way into a civic organization and become a source of clients later. It is my opinion that they do more harm than good, and college life would be better if the social activities were more free-form in nature, with students forming their friendships on a more individual basis. Too many kids going to college spend more time partying than they do studying, but that is especially the case with fraternities. Sororities don't get into the newspapers for such outrageous behavior. They probably are equally as elitist, but they aren't dangerous.





L.A. school district: Girl, 14, mature enough to consent to sex with teacher
CBS NEWS November 14, 2014, 9:23 AM

LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles Unified School District Friday was facing criticism over how the district handled a student sexual assault case involving one of their teachers.

CBS Los Angeles reports that in the civil case at question, their attorneys argued a 14-year-old student was mature enough to consent to sex with her middle school math teacher.

Elkis Hermida, a teacher at Thomas Edison Middle School, was convicted of lewd acts against a child and sentenced in July 2011 to three years in state prison.

The student then filed the case to seek financial compensation from the LAUSD stating she suffered emotional trauma from the six-month relationship with Hermida, according to Southern California Public Radio station KPCC.

During the trial, L.A. Unified's attorney W. Keith Wyatt introduced the girl's sexual history and argued she bore some of the responsibility.

The judge ruled in favor of the district.

"Why is it her fault that she planned on having sex with her teacher? That she lied to her mother so she could have an opportunity to have sex with her teacher," Wyatt said in a radio interview with KPCC. "That she went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn't she be responsible for that?"

KPCC reports the girl's lawyer is appealing the case.




“...mature enough to consent to sex with her middle school math teacher.” He was convicted of “lewd acts against a child,” and is serving a prison term. When the girl's family sued the school system for damages, however, the judge ruled that she should be responsible for her six month long cooperation in the sexual activity.

The police department mug shot of this teacher shows a smug, handsome young man with a smile on his face. I really wanted to hit him when I saw that picture. “During the trial, L.A. Unified's attorney W. Keith Wyatt introduced the girl's sexual history” and argued she bore some of the responsibility. A girl that age is interested in having sex, usually, but it is rare that society considers them “mature enough” to consent. Their experience level and ability to protect themselves is not nearly high enough for them to be blamed. “The judge ruled in favor of the district.” Sexism and money won out here. I hope that judge is voted out of office soon.





GOP gets more fuel in fight against Obamacare
By NANCY CORDES CBS NEWS
November 14, 2014, 8:03 PM

Republicans who want to blow holes in the health care law got more ammunition Friday from new videos featuring Jonathan Gruber, an economist and consultant who helped write the law.

A 2013 recording raised eyebrows earlier this week, in which Gruber said the Affordable Care Act passed thanks to "the stupidity of the American voter."

The newest clip to surface is from 2011. In it, Gruber describes how Obamacare's authors used deception to describe a new tax on high-end insurance plans scheduled to go into effect in 2018.

"And the only way we could take it on was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans," Gruber said.

In 2012, he boasted about similar tactics in the universal health care bill he helped to craft in Massachusetts, which was a precursor to Obamacare.

"The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, okay, in Massachusetts," Gruber said. "Ted Kennedy and the smart people in Massachusetts basically figured out a way to rip off the feds for about $400 million a year."

Now, Republicans want Gruber to tell those stories to Congress.

"We may use hearings, we may use deposition process," says California Rep. Darrell Issa, who plans to call Gruber before the House Government Oversight Committee as soon as early December.

The congressman says his staff is reaching out to Gruber, but when asked if the MIT professor is being responsive, Issa's response was: "What do you think?"

Democrats say Gruber doesn't speak for them and that his role in writing the law has been exaggerated, although he was paid nearly $400,000 in consulting fees by the Obama administration.

His comments add fuel to the all-out assault on Obamacare that Republicans are planning for January, when they will control both houses of Congress.

"It gives us an opportunity to dig a little deeper, ask a few more questions and push a little harder to get provisions of this law off the books," says Rep. Marcia Blackburn of Tennessee.

Two of the Obamacare provisions that critics like the least are the employer mandate and the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to have insurance.

Both are at the heart of the law, and bills to do away with them would likely be met with a presidential veto.




Jonathan Gruber, according to this CBS article will be testifying before the House Government Oversight Committee next month. Eviscerating him will be a part of the Republican plan to destroy the Affordable Care Act next year. If he did call the American public “stupid” for not understanding the economics of the law, he is (1) not a friend to the liberals and (2) not smart enough himself to watch how he phrases his statements. I scanned the Internet for exact quotations of his words and their contexts, and didn't find any. Most of the articles are from right wing publications rather than mainstream news sources, and are full of invective.

“The newest clip to surface is from 2011. In it, Gruber describes how Obamacare's authors used deception to describe a new tax on high-end insurance plans scheduled to go into effect in 2018. 'And the only way we could take it on was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans,' Gruber said. In 2012, he boasted about similar tactics in the universal health care bill he helped to craft in Massachusetts, which was a precursor to Obamacare. The fact that Mitt Romney's governorship engineered that law and used similar tactics is not being broadcast by the Republicans, who are demonizing the plans because they are based on “a tax.” Money for a federal healthcare plan has to be raised by a tax, it seems to me. See the following article on universal health care around the world.


Universal health care
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens. It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes.[1] Universal health care is not a one-size-fits-all concept and does not imply coverage for all people for everything. Universal health care can be determined by three critical dimensions: who is covered, what services are covered, and how much of the cost is covered.[1]

History[edit]

The Soviet Union implemented universal health care in 1937 and extended equal access to its rural residents in 1969.[2][3] New Zealand created a universal health care system in a series of steps from 1939 to 1941.[2][4] On July 5, 1948, the United Kingdom implemented its universal National Health Service. Universal health care was next introduced in the Nordic countries of Sweden (1955),[5] Iceland (1956),[6] Norway (1956),[7] Denmark (1961),[8] andFinland (1964).[9] Universal health insurance was then implemented in Japan (1961), Saskatchewan (1962) followed by the rest of Canada (1968–1972),[2][10] and twice in Australia (1974 and 1984). Universal national health services were then introduced in the Southern European countries of Italy (1978), Portugal (1979), Greece (1983), and Spain(1986), followed by the Asian countries of South Korea (1989), Taiwan (1995), and Israel (1995). From the 1970s to 1990s, the Western European countries of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,[11] and Luxembourg expanded their social health insurance systems to provide universal or nearly universal coverage, as did the Netherlands (1986 and 2006) and Switzerland (1996).

Funding models[edit]

See also: Health care economics
Universal health care in most countries has been achieved by a mixed model of funding. General taxation revenue is the primary source of funding, but in many countries it is supplemented by specific levies (which may be charged to the individual and/or an employer) or with the option of private payments (either direct or via optional insurance) for services beyond those covered by the public system.

Almost all European systems are financed through a mix of public and private contributions.[12] The majority of universal health care systems are funded primarily by tax revenue (e.g. Portugal[12] Spain, Denmark, and Sweden). Some nations, such as Germany, France[13] and Japan[14] employ a multi-payer system in which health care is funded by private and public contributions. However, much of the non-government funding is by contributions by employers and employees to regulated non-profit sickness funds. These contributions are compulsory and defined according to law.

A distinction is also made between municipal and national healthcare funding. For example, one model is that the bulk of the healthcare is funded by the municipality, speciality healthcare is provided and possibly funded by a larger entity, such as a municipal co-operation board or the state, and the medications are paid by a state agency.

Universal health care systems are modestly redistributive. Progressivity of health care financing has limited implications for overall income inequality.[15]

Compulsory insurance[edit]

Main article: National health insurance
This is usually enforced via legislation requiring residents to purchase insurance, but sometimes, in effect, the government provides the insurance. Sometimes there may be a choice of multiple public and private funds providing a standard service (as in Germany) or sometimes just a single public fund (as in Canada). The Swiss Healthcare system and US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are based on compulsory insurance.[16][17]

In some European countries where there's private insurance and universal health care, such as Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, the problem of adverse selection (see Private insurance below) is overcome using a risk compensation pool to equalize, as far as possible, the risks between funds. Thus a fund with a predominantly healthy, younger population has to pay into a compensation pool and a fund with an older and predominantly less healthy population would receive funds from the pool. In this way, sickness funds compete on price, and there is no advantage to eliminate people with higher risks because they are compensated for by means of risk-adjusted capitation payments. Funds are not allowed to pick and choose their policyholders or deny coverage but then mainly compete on price and service. In some countries, the basic coverage level is set by the government and cannot be modified.[18]

Among the potential solutions posited by economists are single payer systems as well as other methods of ensuring that health insurance is universal, such as by requiring all citizens to purchase insurance and limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny insurance to individuals or vary price between individuals.[19][20]

Single payer[edit]

Main article: Single-payer health care
Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health carecosts.[21] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term "single-payer" thus describes only the funding mechanism and refers to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Tax-based financing[edit]

In tax-based financing, individuals contribute to the provision of health services through various taxes. These are typically pooled across the whole population, unless local governments raise and retain tax revenues. Some countries (notably the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Nordic countries) choose to fund health care directly from taxation alone. Other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected.

Social health insurance[edit]

In social health insurance, contributions from workers, the self-employed, enterprises and government are pooled into a single or multiple funds on a compulsory basis. These funds typically contract with a mix of public and private providers for the provision of a specified benefit package. Preventive and public health care may be provided by these funds or responsibility kept solely by the Ministry of Health. Within social health insurance, a number of functions may be executed by parastatal or non-governmental sickness funds or in a few cases by private health insurance companies.

Private insurance[edit]

In private health insurance, premiums are paid directly from employers, associations, individuals and families to insurance companies, which pool risks across their membership base. Private insurance includes policies sold by commercial for profit firms, non-profit companies, and community health insurers. Generally, private insurance is voluntary, in contrast to social insurance programs, which tend to be compulsory.[22]

In some countries with universal coverage, private insurance often excludes many health conditions which are expensive and which the state health care system can provide. For example, in the United Kingdom, one of the largest private health care providers is BUPA, which has a long list of general exclusions even in its highest coverage policy,[23] most of which are routinely provided by the National Health Service. In the United States, dialysis treatment for end stage renal failure is generally paid for by government and not by the insurance industry. Persons with privatized Medicare (Medicare Advantage) are the exception and must get their dialysis paid through their insurance company, but persons with end stage renal failure generally cannot buy Medicare Advantage plans.[24]




CNN'S TAKE ON THE “STUPID” STATEMENTS

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/

Obamacare: Voters, are you stupid?
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
November 15, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Years-old but newly scrutinized videos of MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber ignited a political firestorm this week because the self-described architect of Obamacare thanks "the stupidity of the American voter" for leading to passage of the president's signature piece of legislation.

With Obamacare open enrollment set to begin over the weekend and the Supreme Court set to weigh in again on the law next year, Republicans pounced, using the videos as additional ammunition in their case that President Barack Obama and his administration misled the American public on Obamacare. But it's been kind of a difficult story line to follow.

Why should old videos of an economics professor matter?

Here's the gist: Gruber called voters stupid, Republicans are calling him the Obamacare architect, and Democrats are calling it all a big misunderstanding. Still confused? This will help:

Was Gruber the "architect" of Obamacare?

Not exactly. This is a law that was passed by both houses of Congress and written in different forms by several Congressional committees. It's many thousands of pages long and has a myriad of different provisions. But Gruber clearly played an important role in crafting the idea behind the series of exchanges, subsidies and taxes that form the law's centerpiece. He continues to argue the country is better for Obamacare -- but we'll get to that.

And he doesn't look nearly as cool as this guy, who actually goes by the name, "the architect."

So why is he being called that? And what did he actually do? Gruber's work did shape the Affordable Care Act in three key ways:

1. Gruber played a crucial role in crafting the health care law passed in Massachusetts during then-Gov. Mitt Romney's tenure. Gruber modeled the impact and effectiveness of that state's plans to implement an individual mandate -- the controversial policy that essentially forces people to get covered, or get fined.

And this matters because the 2004 Massachusetts law was the model for Obamacare. The "individual mandate" became a key component -- and political lightning rod -- of the health care law most people now call Obamacare.

Obamacare's next fight for survival

2. Gruber was hired in 2009 as a consultant by the Obama administration -- and paid nearly $400,000 -- for a year of his work. What'd he do? Gruber has called it "technical support" and "analysis." What he really did was take a bunch of numbers and model the effects of proposals that would later become the Affordable Care Act.

"If they hadn't had this kind of analysis well, the law would not be designed as well," Gruber said on the O'Reilly Factor last year, discussing his work.

3. At least eight states called him in to counsel them on how to implement the health care law and set up state-run health insurance exchanges. So he's pretty important to Obamacare.

O.K. but this guy is still calling voters stupid! I vote. Am I stupid?

No, you're not stupid. At least we don't think so.
So why is he calling us voters stupid?

Let's first look at what Gruber actually said: He was defending the fact that the law was written behind closed doors and he said Democrats intentionally made the law confusing to mask the fact that the law instituted a new tax to pay for health reform. Why'd the Democrats do this? Voters don't like new taxes. Gruber said it was more important to get health reform than to be up front.

"It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

And: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference," he said at Washington University at St. Louis in 2013.

The brunt of Gruber's argument is that policymakers crafting the law had to take politics into account. And politics means that politicians prefer to vote for a tax on insurance companies that will ultimately get passed on to consumers, rather than voting for a tax on consumers outright, for example.

Gruber's "stupid" comments are summed up his contention that people don't want to pay more taxes, even when they want cheaper or better things. For instance:

- Want better public education?
- Sure!
- Want to pay higher taxes to improve public education?
Eh...

This also applies to voting for the individual mandate "penalty," as the Obama administration refers to it, rather than a "tax," as the Supreme Court ruled in 2012.

And it turns out that Gruber always knew a tax on expensive insurance plans would eventually grow to hit almost every insurance plan. He admitted as much in yet another video that surfaced on Friday. The White House and Democrats, by the way, promised up and down that the so-called "cadillac tax" wouldn't affect most Americans.

But the controversy over whether the mandate is a "tax" isn't news, right?

Nope. But it is giving Republicans' claims that the Obama administration misled voters on the "truth" of the Affordable Care Act more credence.

So why are Democrats trying to distance themselves from Gruber?

Democrats clearly don't want Obamacare tarnished anymore than it already has because of one guy. And they definitely don't want him to be the face of Obamacare or Democrats' view on the law.

What they're trying to do is downplay Gruber's role in crafting the law.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Gruber "didn't help write our bill" and claimed not to "know who he is."

She wasn't being entirely up front on that point. Pelosi actually cited Gruber's work approvingly in 2009 and even mentioned him by name in an interview that same year.

Was Gruber making a larger point here that we're missing?

Definitely. If you can get past his condescending tone and insults, Gruber's speeches actually offer some insight into how policy is impacted by politics.

"If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK?" Gruber said.

And while the (impartial) jury on the Affordable Care Act is still out, the law has lowered that national uninsured rate and, so far, the law is proving to be cheaper than expected.

Either way, Gruber has said he believes the U.S. is better off with Obamacare than without it.

And if less transparency helps implement better policy, he's O.K. with that.
But am I? Are you?
You make that call.

Third video emerges of Obamacare architect insulting voters
The guy who thinks voters are 'stupid'
Obamacare architect discussed misleading public in 4th newly uncovered video




“But Gruber clearly played an important role in crafting the idea behind the series of exchanges, subsidies and taxes that form the law's centerpiece. He continues to argue the country is better for Obamacare -- but we'll get to that.... What'd he do? Gruber has called it "technical support" and "analysis." What he really did was take a bunch of numbers and model the effects of proposals that would later become the Affordable Care Act. 'If they hadn't had this kind of analysis well, the law would not be designed as well,' Gruber said on the O'Reilly Factor last year, discussing his work.... No, you're not stupid. At least we don't think so. So why is he calling us voters stupid? Let's first look at what Gruber actually said: He was defending the fact that the law was written behind closed doors and he said Democrats intentionally made the law confusing to mask the fact that the law instituted a new tax to pay for health reform. Why'd the Democrats do this? Voters don't like new taxes. Gruber said it was more important to get health reform than to be up front.... Was Gruber making a larger point here that we're missing? Definitely. If you can get past his condescending tone and insults, Gruber's speeches actually offer some insight into how policy is impacted by politics. 'If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK?' Gruber said. And while the (impartial) jury on the Affordable Care Act is still out, the law has lowered that national uninsured rate and, so far, the law is proving to be cheaper than expected.”

The key fact is that a healthcare system which includes everybody, even the very poor, those with chronic illnesses or those who are not lucky enough to have their jobs pay their insurance (and companies that do not pay insurance anymore are getting more common as the power of unions fades backward to become ancient history). It is unfortunate, however, that a politically liberal economist, a very well-educated guy, was so uncool as to call the American voter “stupid” even by implication. The Republicans are like a pack of hyenas. They all run up in a group and attack some graceful and beautiful antelope from the rear whenever they can. Gruber gave them that chance. Shame on him! He has dragged his party down with those statements.






Common Core Reading: Difficult, Dahl, Repeat – NPR
Cory Turner
November 15, 2014

The last in our four-part series on reading in the Common Core era.

All week we've been reporting on big changes in reading instruction brought on by the Common Core State Standards: a doubling-down on evidence-based reading, writing and speaking; increased use of nonfiction; and a big push to get kids reading more "complex texts."

Whatever you think of these shifts, they're meaningless ideas without a classroom and kids to make sense of them. That's today's story, as we round out our series on reading in the Core era.

It's mid-morning at Watkins Elementary in Washington, D.C. From the fourth floor, Amy Wertheimer's fifth-grade classroom looks out over a red-brick grid of rowhouses and, looming over it all, the U.S. Capitol. But every back is to the view as Ms. Wertheimer calls her kids to the reading rug.

"All right, we are on the carpet in 5 ... 4..."

The students force their rubbery legs, full of early energy, to criss-cross applesauce. Each has a binder. Inside, is evidence the Common Core State Standards have been here.

The kids are reviewing a bit of nonfiction — what the Core calls an "informational text" — titled "Who Settled the West?" It begins with the Native Americans, then moves through the arrival of Europeans and into the 19th century migrations of Mormons, former slaves and gold seekers.

For many of the kids, it was a tough read. Or to use the Core's vocabulary, "complex." Which is why they're now tackling it together, as a class.

Ms. Wertheimer warms them up with a text-dependent question: "Are all of these native peoples nomadic?"

The kids comb through the text, line-by-line, word-by-word.

What makes the text tough? The language, for one. Words like "prejudice" trip them up, as do some of the Native American names. If "Haida" is a speedbump for these readers, "Tlingit" is a brick wall.

But, once Khalil Sommerville struggles through them both, he does something just as hard, something the Common Core really wants him to be able to do: He answers Ms. Wertheimer's question using evidence from the text.

"On page 6, paragraph 2," he says, "the first sentence: 'The Haida and Tlingit of the Northwest built permanent wooden homes called longhouses.' "

Khalil flags the word "permanent." In other words, not nomadic. After an attaboy for Khalil, Ms. Wertheimer asks about the Sioux.

Destiny Brown volunteers: "Page 6, on the first paragraph, at the end it says 'They lived in tents called tipis.' "

This kind of class-wide reading seems to engage the kids. Lots of hands shoot up. When Ms. Wertheimer notices a wallflower, she finds a way to include him.

Searching For Answers

It's also tiring work for the kids. So, after 20 minutes, they break into groups.

One cluster of 10-year-olds dives into the packet, looking for reasons why African-Americans headed west before and after the Civil War.

Kandice Norris scans the text, finds a key quote and offers up Reason One: Former slaves could find paid work in the West. Novaun Lee chimes in with Reason Two: Even before the war, slavery was illegal in the West.

Ms. Wertheimer walks from group to group, helping and encouraging the kids to show evidence for their answers. She's been teaching for 17 years and says this shift to reading more complex material is a big difference, and she loves it.

"This pushes them," she says. "And the high kids aren't bored, and the low kids aren't bored. And we're all learning about really interesting things."

It's at this point that I have to mention Ms. Wertheimer's hair — a serious, salt-and-pepper bob. But, along the bottom runs a surprising fringe of dyed-pink hair.

It's a perfect metaphor for how she — and lots of teachers — are approaching reading in the Common Core era. Not as an either-or proposition. The Core standards don't say everything kids read has to be salt-and-pepper serious and seriously hard. There's still plenty of room for pink.

A Breather

That's why kids here have leveled libraries. Leveling pre-dates the Core. It's a way of labeling books based on the skill needed to read them.

In many schools, leveled reading once drove instruction. Kids would spend their entire day reading at or close to their comfort zone. At Watkins, daily independent reading with leveled books provides a counterbalance to the tough stuff, a breather.

Next door, in teacher Kate Sommerville's fifth-grade class, Tonyae Butler sits quietly at her desk, reading Roald Dahl's The Witches. She's already plowed through his other classics, including Matilda and James and the Giant Peach.

Tonyae says the book is actually below her reading level, but that's okay. She's having fun. And that's the point.

Still, I assume she prefers Dahl to the close-reading binder on her desk. They'll be tackling a tough, new article shortly.

"Do you think it looks kind of tough?" I ask.

Her answer: "I think it looks interesting and tough."

To my surprise, Tonyae says, one thing can be both.




“All week we've been reporting on big changes in reading instruction brought on by the Common Core State Standards: a doubling-down on evidence-based reading, writing and speaking; increased use of nonfiction; and a big push to get kids reading more 'complex texts.'... For many of the kids, it was a tough read. Or to use the Core's vocabulary, 'complex.' Which is why they're now tackling it together, as a class. Ms. Wertheimer warms them up with a text-dependent question: 'Are all of these native peoples nomadic?' The kids comb through the text, line-by-line, word-by-word. What makes the text tough? The language, for one. Words like "prejudice" trip them up, as do some of the Native American names. If "Haida" is a speedbump for these readers, "Tlingit" is a brick wall.... He answers Ms. Wertheimer's question using evidence from the text. 'On page 6, paragraph 2,' he says, 'the first sentence: 'The Haida and Tlingit of the Northwest built permanent wooden homes called longhouses.' "… This kind of class-wide reading seems to engage the kids. Lots of hands shoot up. When Ms. Wertheimer notices a wallflower, she finds a way to include him.... 'This pushes them,' she says. 'And the high kids aren't bored, and the low kids aren't bored. And we're all learning about really interesting things.' It's at this point that I have to mention Ms. Wertheimer's hair — a serious, salt-and-pepper bob. But, along the bottom runs a surprising fringe of dyed-pink hair.... The Core standards don't say everything kids read has to be salt-and-pepper serious and seriously hard. There's still plenty of room for pink.... Leveling pre-dates the Core. It's a way of labeling books based on the skill needed to read them. In many schools, leveled reading once drove instruction. Kids would spend their entire day reading at or close to their comfort zone. At Watkins, daily independent reading with leveled books provides a counterbalance to the tough stuff, a breather.”

This reading of complex texts within a group, each person contributing to the group's understanding of it, takes some of the pressure off each student while introducing all the students to the information. I can't remember doing much of that when I was in school. We had a chapter in our textbook for homework, then the teacher would talk about it and the class would discuss it the next day. We didn't do things like sitting down on the floor on a special rug, and I can't say that I think that is a necessity for the kids to learn the material. It's too much like the first grade to me. Kids need to learn to sit quietly in their seats and actually listen to what is going on.

The article says that the more difficult textual material chosen under Common Core is not approved by all parents, but to me it is a very good thing because young people will learn much more in high school than they so often do. We didn't have much advanced reading to do when I was young, but I got plenty of it in college, and my reaction was a lot like the girl quoted in this news article “'Do you think it looks kind of tough?' I ask. Her answer: 'I think it looks interesting and tough.' To my surprise, Tonyae says, one thing can be both.”

Of course, when I was in school, most of our history textbooks were aimed at the reading level where we should be, and we weren't assigned material that was actually at full adult level except for classic novels in my English classes. I do remember having to memorize the Gettysburg Address, not that I could say it now. I remember being impressed by the sheer beauty of the stately language and Abraham lincoln became a hero to me. I had to look up some words in a dictionary when reading that. I remember looking up “fourscore.” I notice this article doesn't mention dictionaries. Don't they use them in class anymore? I don't think you can successfully tackle texts that are above your reading level without a dictionary.

Word study, not just spelling, should be a part of every classroom. New vocabulary can be understood fairly fast if the student is introduced to the concept of root words and endings when tackling an assignment, the quickest way to build a good vocabulary, and a good dictionary is the place to go for that. It especially pays to notice the languages and how they are similar or different from each other. Of course, nowadays, I use Google for the purpose. After awhile the reader will be comparing new root words with familiar ones to guess at the meaning before looking it up. Everybody should own a good collegiate dictionary and use it throughout their life, when they find a new word in their reading. (I assume every adult will read books or other informational material, not to forget the daily newspaper, as long as they live!).

I came from a working class family, but both my parents were interested in words and reading, and we had a good dictionary which included color plates of such things as butterflies, birds, etc. When a local teacher came to our house selling Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia, my parents bought a set and I read them many a summer day for fun and to make reports for my classes.