Friday, December 12, 2014


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-head-gina-mccarthy-defends-strategy-denies-republican-doomsday-scenarios/

EPA head McCarthy defends strategy, denies Republican "doomsday scenarios"
By MICHAEL CASEY CBS NEWS December 12, 2014, 5:00 AM

Facing significant budget cuts and an incoming Republican Congress determined to limit her authority, Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy might be expected to sound a bit chastened.

She doesn't.

In an exclusive interview with CBS News, McCarthy, who became EPA administrator in 2013, defended her agency's plans to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, strengthen ozone standards and regulate leaks of methane.

"It's my job to explain to people why what we are doing is the job that Congress gave us and why it's important from a public health perspective," she said. "We have proven for 40 years that we can make this case."

The EPA is on the front lines of a multi-pronged effort by President Obama to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. As part that of that effort, the agency is proposing to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants 30 percent by 2030. It is also expected to announce plans to regulate mercury in the coming weeks.

Add to that an air quality proposal, which seeks to lower ozone standards to within a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, and a rule combating mercury that is the focus of a bitter court fight, it's no wonder the agency has become a favorite target of Republican leaders and traditional business groups.

They have argued these regulations will decimate the economy. The ozone rule alone, they say, would cost the economy $3.4 trillion in GDP from 2017 to 2040. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, a fierce climate change denier, has written the agency to say it lacks the authority to regulate carbon emissions. And the Republicans have made it clear that when they take over in January they will make it a top priority to reign in the agency's power.

It only got worse for McCarthy this week, after a congressional deal to fund the government included budget cuts to the EPA that would leave the agency with the smallest staff in a quarter century, according to The Associated Press.

McCarthy, who was the environmental point person for five Republican governors before joining the EPA in 2009, appeared unmoved by the controversy and said the fears of job loss and economic stagnation are always trotted out - and proven unfounded - whenever the agency proposes anything to improve the environment.

"There may be a lot of continued rhetoric that (this) is a doomsday scenario. But we will just remind people that this a different decade, the same stuff," she said. "They have been saying this every decade that EPA has been around and we have not seen those doomsday scenarios come true."

A case in point, she said, was the rule which limits emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

"When we did things like the mercury rule, everybody said it would be disastrous. Everybody said (there) would be significant job losses. Everybody said there would be huge energy spikes as a result of that," she said. "We did that rule almost three years ago. Guess what, none of that happened. None of that happened. We didn't see a large price spike. We saw no reliability challenges that couldn't be addressed through the normal process."

The next fight will be the carbon emissions plan. As the EPA sifts through 2.2 million public comments that will help shape the plan, it is hearing from politicians including some Democrats who want it delayed over fears that it could put the reliability of electrical power at risk.

McCarthy is hearing none of that.

"While you hear this swirling, people are still at the table, they are rolling up their sleeves," she said. "They are going to get this work done because they know we are very serious about getting a rule finalized as quickly as we can so we can take action on climate the way the president has promised and the way our laws require us to."

"I am going to do my best on behalf of the hard-working people of the EPA, who are sticking with their jobs and doing it well...We are going to do our job there and that is what we will continue to do," she stated.

McCarthy was careful to add that the agency was doing its utmost to consider the views of all sides, including concerns about the rule's economic impact. She admitted that the work they do can be perceived as polarizing, but insisted that "the environmental agency has not been a partisan agency," pointing out that the EPA came into being under President Nixon and that President George H.W. Bush signed a significant amendment to the Clean Air Act.

"This is the epitome of a collaborative process with the states and with the business community. It is unprecedented outreach. It is unprecedented flexibility that we have provided to each state," she said. "It is clear recognition that coal will be a continued part of our future. This is not a war on coal. It's an effort to address carbon pollution the same way we address mercury, the same way we address all of our ambient air quality standards."

McCarthy said she believed the "vast majority " of the public and many business leaders are behind the agency's plans either because they understand the public health benefits or have witnessed the economic benefits of a green economy - whether that be the explosive growth of renewables or popularity of fuel-efficient cars.

"There is no way in which I think a case can be made that we should sit and do nothing on carbon pollution and climate change and that is beneficial to the economy," she said. "The worst thing you can do for the economy here and for our competitive advantage everywhere is to not take action on climate. That is where there is huge economic risk that we simply can't afford to absorb any longer."

In the end, McCarthy said she believed the agency will be able to strike a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy and won't do "anything to bring forward those doomsday scenarios."

"While I don't expect a pat on the back from everybody, I do want to be given the opportunity to do my job well," she said. "I think we will show people that EPA is extraordinary in terms of our ability to grasp the science, grasp the technical issues, to understand the cost and benefits associated with our rules and to be able to deliver this rule in a way that they want - which is not hurting them economically but actually spurring that, really addressing the carbon pollution that challenges us."




“Add to that an air quality proposal, which seeks to lower ozone standards to within a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, and a rule combating mercury that is the focus of a bitter court fight, it's no wonder the agency has become a favorite target of Republican leaders and traditional business groups. They have argued these regulations will decimate the economy. The ozone rule alone, they say, would cost the economy $3.4 trillion in GDP from 2017 to 2040. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, a fierce climate change denier, has written the agency to say it lacks the authority to regulate carbon emissions. And the Republicans have made it clear that when they take over in January they will make it a top priority to reign in the agency's power.... McCarthy, who was the environmental point person for five Republican governors before joining the EPA in 2009, appeared unmoved by the controversy and said the fears of job loss and economic stagnation are always trotted out - and proven unfounded - whenever the agency proposes anything to improve the environment.... "There is no way in which I think a case can be made that we should sit and do nothing on carbon pollution and climate change and that is beneficial to the economy," she said. "The worst thing you can do for the economy here and for our competitive advantage everywhere is to not take action on climate. That is where there is huge economic risk that we simply can't afford to absorb any longer."

This is one of those perennial issues that provoke opposite and angry reactions in politics. I'm a liberal, so I want to see our country spend money on infrastructure and environmental issues, whereas the Republicans keep saying it costs too much money. Our environment is one of the things that affects us all at home where we live. Do you remember when city smog and other stinky pollution was irritating our lungs, noses and eyes and even causing diseases? I do. Besides, it is causing global warming already, not just in the future. Hooray for an active EPA. To me, there's no good argument in the matter.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-police-chiefs-think-after-deaths-of-mike-brown-eric-garner/

Police chiefs on deaths of Mike Brown, Eric Garner
By CBS NEWS December 11, 2014

In a CBS News poll, 54 percent of African-Americans said they've been targets of police discrimination. It's an issue CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues explored with a group of police chiefs: Rodney Monroe of Charlotte, Charles McClelland of Houston, Edward Flynn of Milwaukee, and Janee Harteau of Minneapolis. The discussion touched on excessive force, diversity within police forces and the dangers of law enforcement. 

You can watch the extended interview in the video below.




“54 percent of African-Americans said they've been targets of police discrimination.” This article is so short that normally I wouldn't include it, but if you want to watch the video showing viewpoints held by police chiefs, you can go to the website cited. I did an Internet search yesterday seeking data on the political party espoused by police officers and got only the various comments posted below.

An informative and interesting article on police department thoughts was in the following website:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2289&issue_id=12011 called Updating Ethics Training-Policing Privacy Series: Taking Race out of the Perception Equation. I published this article separately under “Police Chiefs On Policing.”


Google Search Term “Liberal Police Officers” –

Under that heading I generally found articles about how police are NOT liberal, but the following Yahoo commentary site brought out some more insights. I personally know that some police officers are drawn to the force because they want to help people.

One of the points mentioned in the comments from Yahoo.com below is the great amount of general corruption that exists, from planting evidence, using drugs from testosterone shots to addictive street drugs, and stealing evidence to lying in court to give the Prosecution the edge in the trial. Unnecessary violence isn't their only crime.

Suggested reading – another very interesting discussion of various aspects of policing both today and in the past, and a number of different types of policing. --http://www.d.umn.edu/~wfleisch/soc3344/PoliceAndCommunityCh11.pdf, Police and the Community


See the comments below:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100916182745AAwJfTg

Bingo World

Are police officers generally liberal or conservative? 

ICH8TE answered 4 years ago


I don't think there's any official data on that, but they(most) do have many many characteristics like that of the GOP. 

Like thinking that it's only their word that counts even before you get to see a courtroom and a judge. If they say you did it, then you did it. Especially if you are a "minority". Cops lie and steal and harass people all the time and it's very very very very rare to see them go to jail themselves for anything that they do that's criminal. They do that Richard Nixon thing and say "I am not a crook", and people believe them just because they are cops.

? answered 4 years ago

It depends where you live. Where I used to live, they were pretty liberal. Then when I moved to a small town, they were conservative.

Jack Schitt answered 4 years ago

Depends. I come from a family of cops. The local and state boys tend to be Conservitive, while the feds, kiss the *** of the hand that feeds em.

Zdlax Reiquenaza answered 4 years ago

In my experience, anyone who serves the existing power structures (especially in security, law/order) at a grunt level leans conservative.

? answered 4 years ago

captain and up are liberal that is why they have rank. the street cops are mostly conservative.

Sean answered 4 years ago

Conservative 

I don't think a liberal would make a good cop.




SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/institute-constitution-course-there-should-be-religious-test-public-office

Institute On The Constitution: Of Course There Should Be A Religious Test For Public Office!

SUBMITTED BY Miranda Blue on Thursday, 12/11/2014

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported on the efforts of a group of church-state separation activists, led by Todd Stiefel, who are trying to remove long-forgotten articles in seven state constitutions that require people holding public office to believe in God.

This did not sit well with Jake McAuley, the chief operating officer of Michael Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution, who writes in BarbWire today that it is “impossible” for an elected official who doesn’t believe in God to fulfill his or her duties. “This isn’t about discrimination or bigotry,” he writes. “ It’s about ensuring that those holding office in America are committed to the true, lawful, American philosophy of government.”

Peroutka, who was recently elected to a county office in Maryland, has declared all laws passed by his state legislature null and void because the body violated "God's law" by legalizing gay marriage.

Now, let’s be clear. Mr. Steifel may not believe that there is a God. And no one is forcing him to do so.

But if he doesn’t believe that God exists, it follows that he doesn’t believe that God-given rights exist either.

And if he doesn’t believe that God-given rights exist, then how would you expect him, if elected, to defend and protect those rights?

You see, when someone is elected to office he swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the God-given rights that are secured thereby. To elect someone who does not believe that God exists, is to ask them to do that which is impossible for them to do.

The drafters of our state constitutions understood this simple logic and so they included these provisions designed to protect us from officeholders who do not share the American philosophy of law and government.

Think of it this way.

Suppose instead of not believing in God, Mr. Stiefel informs us that he does not believe that there exists a city called Cincinnati, Ohio.

By not believing in Cincinnati, Mr. Stiefel breaks no law that we can punish him for.

But now suppose that a few of us have decided to take a bus trip to visit Cincinnati. We advertise for a driver for the bus and Mr. Stiefel answers our advertisement.

Is Mr. Stiefel qualified to drive us to Cincinnati?

Do you see the problem? Once he started the bus, what would Mr. Stiefel do next? How would he get us to a place the existence of which he denies?

Of course he is not qualified. He not only doesn’t know the way. He doesn’t even believe that there is a way. He is not qualified to take us to a place that, in his own mind, does not exist.

So this constitutional requirement that an office holder must believe in God is a logical and consistent protection against those who might drive our constitutional republic in a bad direction.

This isn’t about discrimination or bigotry. It’s about ensuring that those holding office in America are committed to the true, lawful, American philosophy of government.

FILED UNDER
ORGANIZATIONS
PEOPLE:
Michael Peroutka, Jake MacAuley
TOPICS:
Separation of Church and State




“It’s about ensuring that those holding office in America are committed to the true, lawful, American philosophy of government.” Peroutka, who was recently elected to a county office in Maryland, has declared all laws passed by his state legislature null and void because the body violated "God's law" by legalizing gay marriage.... So this constitutional requirement that an office holder must believe in God is a logical and consistent protection against those who might drive our constitutional republic in a bad direction.This isn’t about discrimination or bigotry. It’s about ensuring that those holding office in America are committed to the true, lawful, American philosophy of government.” In other words, this is a silly argument based solely on semantics. I've never heard of this group, but see what I found on Wikipedia –

Institute on the Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Institute on the Constitution is a paleoconservative think-tank and educational organization based in Pasadena, Maryland. The Institute is a project of the American College of Cultural Studies. The Institute's aim "is intended to reconnect Americans to the history of the American Republic and to their heritage of freedom under law." The Insitutate educates students about American history and Constitutional government from a constitutional conservative perspective.

The Institute is heavily associated with the Constitution Party. It is funded primarily by the law firm of 2004 Constitution Party presidential nominee Michael Peroutka. Maryland Republican Party Delegate Donald H. Dwyer, Jr. and former Republican David K. Kyle have both served as directors of the Institute.

The Institute is also heavily involved in the efforts of Judge Roy Moore.



Roy Moore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American judgeand Republican politician and the current Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He is noted for his refusal, in 2003, in his first term asChief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge. On November 13, 2003, theAlabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from his post as Chief Justice.

 Moore's supporters regard his stand as a defense of "judicial rights" and the Constitution of Alabama. Moore contended that federal judges who ruled against his actions consider "obedience of a court order superior to all other concerns, even the suppression of belief in the sovereignty of God."[1]

Moore sought the Republican nomination for the governorship of Alabama in 2006, but lost to incumbent Bob Riley in the June primaryby a nearly 2-to-1 margin. On June 1, 2009 he announced his campaign for the 2010 election for governor.[2] Moore placed fourth in the race held on June 1, 2010, having received only 19 percent of the vote.

On April 18, 2011, Moore announced that he was forming anexploratory committee to run in the Republican presidential primariesin 2012.[3][4] When that campaign failed to gain traction, he began to draw speculation in the media as being a potential Constitution Partypresidential contender.[5][6] In November 2011, Moore withdrew his exploratory committee and ended all speculation of a presidential candidacy when he instead announced that he would in 2012 seek his former post of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.[7]

On November 6, 2012, Moore won election back to the office of Alabama Chief Justice, defeating replacement Democratic candidate Bob Vance.[8][9]





http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-santorum-separation-church-and-state-communist-idea-not-american-one

Rick Santorum: Separation Of Church And State A Communist Idea, Not An American One

SUBMITTED BY Brian Tashman on Monday, 12/1/2014

In a conference call with members of right-wing pastor E.W. Jackson’s STAND America that was posted online today, former senator Rick Santorum disputed the existence of the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, dismissing it as a Communist idea that has no place in America.

A listener on the call told Santorum that “a number of the things that the far left, a.k.a. the Democrat [sic] Party, and the president is pushing for and accomplishing actually accomplishes a number of the tenets of ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ including the amnesty, the elevation of pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass self-importation of illegal immigrants and things of that nature.” The likely presidential candidate replied that “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union. That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.”

Of course, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others, referred to the separation of church and state when explaining the amendment which they drafted.

Later in the call, Santorum continued to lecture President Obama on race in America, telling Jackson — who once criticized a desegregation plan as “social engineering” — that Obama harmed race relations and, ironically, failed “to do something transformational.”

“When you cavort with Al Sharpton, you certainly aren’t into racial reconciliation, that sort of sums it up right there,” he said. “You surround yourself with folks who are not healers but dividers, this president has been the divider-in-chief on so many fronts. You had hoped, as you mentioned, Bishop [Jackson], you hoped that on this front it was an opportunity for the president to do something transformational, that he could’ve been that figure that could’ve made a real difference in racial reconciliation, could’ve made a real difference just within the black community and he chose to take a different path, he chose to use it as a wedge issue as opposed to an issue that was one that he said he wanted to accomplish when he was going to heal the country. He has done anything but.”



Establishment Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...
The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman Fisher Amesin 1789, who derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. This clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
These two clauses make up what are called the "Religion Clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]




“The likely presidential candidate replied that “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union. That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.” Of course, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others, referred to the separation of church and state when explaining the amendment which they drafted. Later in the call, Santorum continued to lecture President Obama on race in America, telling Jackson — who once criticized a desegregation plan as “social engineering” — that Obama harmed race relations and, ironically, failed “to do something transformational.” “When you cavort with Al Sharpton, you certainly aren’t into racial reconciliation, that sort of sums it up right there,” he said. “You surround yourself with folks who are not healers but dividers, this president has been the divider-in-chief on so many fronts.”

So here we have the words of Rick Santorum, who is planning to run for president in 2016. His argument that the constitution doesn't specify a “separation of church and state,” but it has been a part of our American tradition until just recently when certain fundamentalist Christian groups are trying to inaugurate a “Christian tradition” as part of our beginnings. The evidence is to the contrary. My memories of American History class stated clearly that many of those early immigrants from England and other parts of Europe came here specifically so they could worship in peace, free from a government ordained religion. In Pennsylvania at least, groups with widely divergent religious beliefs were welcomed without a penalty of any kind. We also have to remember that in England the Catholics and then the Protestants came into power, and while in power they both exterminated members of the opposed belief group. Likewise Jewish people were abused or killed around Europe. We have set up a nation here where those various groups can all live side by side. The recent influx of Islamic groups may bring this up as an issue again, I'm afraid, and the occasional terrorist fire-bombs synogogues here.

On separation of church and state, see the following article from the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-4-the-constitution-doesnt-separate-church-and-state/240481/, “Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn't Separate Church and State,” America's Founding Fathers may not have included the phrase, but the history is clear--they never wanted a Christian nation by GARRETT EPPSJUN 15 2011. 

Epps states the following: “In the fall of 2010, the dilettante-witch-turned-Tea-Party-Senate-candidate sneered at her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, when he pointed out in a debate that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits "an establishment of religion."

O'Donnell: Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?

Coons: Government shall make no establishment of religion.

The attack on separation of church and state involves twisting words and reading history backwards, and it involves making an inconvenient part of the Constitution disappear. Most ardently espoused by loud foes of "big government," the attack aims to place government in charge of Americans' spiritual lives.   

The idea is that the Framers desired a Christian nation, in which government oversaw the spiritual development of the people by reminding them of their religious duties and subsidizing the churches where they worship. "Establishment of religion," in this reading, simply means that no single Christiandenomination could be officially favored. But official prayers, exhortations to faith, religious monuments, and participation by church bodies in government were all part of the "original intent," the argument goes.

Because the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, the argument runs, the document provides for merger of the two.

It's bosh: ahistorical, untextual, illogical.

Patriots like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were profoundly skeptical about the claims of what they called "revealed religion." As children of the 18th-century Enlightenment, they stressed reason and scientific observation as a means of discovering the nature of "Providence," the power that had created the world.

James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law of the new nation. "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions," he wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, "may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution conspicuously omits any reference to God.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/time-capsule-recovered-in-boston-from-sam-adams-paul-revere/

Time capsule hidden by Adams, Revere unearthed
CBS NEWS December 12, 2014, 7:20 AM

A time capsule dating back to 1795 has been recovered in Boston. It was originally placed by Revolutionary War figures Samuel Adams and Paul Revere. Workers used extraordinary care to remove the capsule from the cornerstone of the Massachusetts Statehouse, reports CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod.

Even in Boston, a city that has witnessed so much history, finding an artifact more than 200 years old is extraordinary. Scholars are excited about what the time capsule might reveal about our nation's formative years.

It took hours of painstaking chiseling by a museum conservator to free the time capsule from its stone and plaster tomb.

The copper case, about the size of a cigar box, was once again held by human hands.

State officials said Thursday they have a good idea about what's inside.

"We have a list, going back to the original 1795. We have coins; we have a Paul Revere plate. We have a number of things. The question is what condition are they in?" Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin said.
But perhaps the more intriguing question is why midnight rider Paul Revere and founding father Samuel Adams left the time capsule behind more than 200 years ago.

Boston College historian Alan Rogers said the patriots wanted future generations to remember what they accomplished.

"They knew they represented history -- history that would not be forgotten; history that would be remembered as long as the republic stood," Rogers said.

Had it not been for repairs on the statehouse, the capsule probably would have stayed lost to history.

With a state police escort, it was taken to Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, where it will be x-rayed and studied by experts -- maybe even opened.

"I still don't think we know, but I could clearly see that there are screws on the top, which means hopefully it won't be difficult to open, if we decide to open it," Museum of Fine Arts head of objects conservation Pamela Hatchfield said.

When work on the statehouse is completed next year, officials said they will return the corroded green metal box back to where they found it.

"The history of Massachusetts is the history of America -- and it's very true," Galvin said. "And this is just another evidence of that."

This is actually not the first time the time capsule has been found. It was also retrieved in 1855. Back then its contents were washed with acid, raising concerns about the condition of the precious artifacts locked inside.




“A time capsule dating back to 1795 has been recovered in Boston. It was originally placed by Revolutionary War figures Samuel Adams and Paul Revere. Workers used extraordinary care to remove the capsule from the cornerstone of the Massachusetts Statehouse, reports CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod.... It took hours of painstaking chiseling by a museum conservator to free the time capsule from its stone and plaster tomb. The copper case, about the size of a cigar box, was once again held by human hands. State officials said Thursday they have a good idea about what's inside. "We have a list, going back to the original 1795. We have coins; we have a Paul Revere plate. We have a number of things. The question is what condition are they in?" Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin said.... Boston College historian Alan Rogers said the patriots wanted future generations to remember what they accomplished. "They knew they represented history -- history that would not be forgotten; history that would be remembered as long as the republic stood," Rogers said. Had it not been for repairs on the statehouse, the capsule probably would have stayed lost to history. With a state police escort, it was taken to Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, where it will be x-rayed and studied by experts -- maybe even opened.... This is actually not the first time the time capsule has been found. It was also retrieved in 1855. Back then its contents were washed with acid, raising concerns about the condition of the precious artifacts locked inside.”

I do hope they decide to open the box and place it with the contents in a glass enclosed exhibition for those of us who get a real thrill from something so old and important. It shouldn't be out in the open air, subject to weather and the general decay of another two hundred or so years. “Back then its contents were washed with acid...” That's really not good . Would the Egyptians treat their mummies that way??





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-second-murder-trial-for-arizona-woman-debra-jean-milke-held-22-years-in-sons-death/

No second murder trial for Arizona woman held 22 years in son's death
CBS/APDecember 11, 2014, 11:45 PM

PHOENIX -- In a scathing critique of Arizona's criminal justice system, a state appeals court on Thursday ordered the dismissal of murder charges against a woman who spent 22 years on death row for the killing of her 4-year-old son.

The Arizona Court of Appeals leveled harsh criticism against prosecutors over their failure to turn over evidence during Debra Jean Milke's trial about a detective with a long history of misconduct and lying. The court called prosecutors' actions "a severe stain on the Arizona justice system."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court said it agreed with Milke's argument that a retrial would amount to double jeopardy.

The failure to disclose the evidence "calls into question the integrity of the system and was highly prejudicial to Milke," the court wrote. "In these circumstances -- which will hopefully remain unique in the history of Arizona law -- the most potent constitutional remedy is required."

The court said the charges against Milke in the 1989 death of her son Christopher can't be refiled, but prosecutors could appeal Thursday's ruling to the state Supreme Court.

"Generally, when there is prosecutorial misconduct and (prosecutors) withhold favorable information, the Court of Appeals will say, 'You guys are bad boys, but it doesn't rise to the level of egregious misconduct,'" criminal defense attorney Mike Black, who was not affiliated with the case, told CBS affiliate KPHO in Phoenix. "These types of cases come down once in a blue moon. I could probably count on one hand the number of cases that have been reversed with this type of behavior in Arizona."

Authorities say Milke dressed her son in his favorite outfit and told him he was going to see Santa Claus at a mall in December 1989. He was then taken into the desert near Phoenix by two men and shot in the back of the head.

Prosecutors claimed Milke's motive was that she didn't want the child anymore and didn't want him to live with his father.

She was convicted in 1990 and sentenced to death. The case rested largely on her purported confession to Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate, which he did not record.

Milke, 50, was on death row for two decades, and the Arizona Supreme Court had gone so far as to issue a death warrant for Milke in 1997. The execution was delayed because she had yet to exhaust federal appeals.

The appeals court said Thursday it wasn't expressing an opinion on Milke's guilt or innocence, though it heavily criticized authorities for staking much of their case on a detective with credibility problems.

A federal appeals court threw out Milke's first-degree murder conviction in March 2013, saying prosecutors knew about a history of misconduct by the detective but failed to disclose it. Maricopa County prosecutors were preparing for a retrial.

Milke's appellate attorney, Lori Voepel, was ecstatic at Thursday's victory.

"We're all thrilled," Voepel said. "We still have the gag order so we can't say much more than we're all thrilled with the opinion."

Milke has been free on bail since September 2013 as she awaited retrial.

"This is really a sock in the gut -- it's a cheap shot," said Arizona Milke, Christopher's father and Debra Milke's ex-husband. "She shouldn't walk free, because she's guilty."

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, whose office is handling the case, said he plans to ask the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn Thursday's ruling.Montgomery said the accusations of misconduct happened well before he took over as the county's top prosecutor and would not happen today, citing safeguards such as having detectives record interviews with suspects.

Montgomery also said he would not be pursuing the case if he believed the evidence could not lead to a conviction in Christopher's killing.

"He should not be forgotten in all of this. Justice and due process for Christopher is a right that he has, too," Montgomery said. "And it's the job of prosecutors, unfortunately in situations like this, where we have to be the voice of the voiceless."

Milke has maintained her innocence and denied she ever confessed to the killing. The two men who led her child to his death in the desert were convicted of murder but refused to testify against Milke.

That left jurors with Saldate's word alone that she told him about her involvement. Saldate has since retired, and The Associated Press has made repeated efforts to reach him for comment.

In its ruling overturning Milke's conviction, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited numerous instances in which Saldate committed misconduct in previous cases, including lying under oath and violating suspects' rights. The federal appeals court also asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Saldate had committed civil rights violations.

Prosecutors insist Milke is guilty, but their ability to try her again was limited by the fact that Saldate said he wouldn't testify. He fears potential federal charges based on the 9th Circuit's accusations of misconduct.

In December, Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz granted Saldate's request to assert his Fifth Amendment right, allowing him to refuse to take the stand.

The state Court of Appeals overturned that ruling in April and said Saldate would be forced to testify at the retrial. Both county and federal authorities said they don't intend to seek charges against the detective based on any of the accusations leveled by the federal appeals court.

Milke, whose mother was a German who married a U.S. Air Force military policeman in Berlin in the 1960s, has drawn strong support from citizens of that nation and Switzerland, neither of which has the death penalty.

Milke's mother died in Germany this year after a battle with cancer. A week before the August death, a judge had denied Milke's request for permission to travel to Germany to visit her mother.




“The failure to disclose the evidence "calls into question the integrity of the system and was highly prejudicial to Milke," the court wrote. "In these circumstances -- which will hopefully remain unique in the history of Arizona law -- the most potent constitutional remedy is required."... She was convicted in 1990 and sentenced to death. The case rested largely on her purported confession to Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate, which he did not record. Milke, 50, was on death row for two decades, and the Arizona Supreme Court had gone so far as to issue a death warrant for Milke in 1997. The execution was delayed because she had yet to exhaust federal appeals. The appeals court said Thursday it wasn't expressing an opinion on Milke's guilt or innocence, though it heavily criticized authorities for staking much of their case on a detective with credibility problems.... "This is really a sock in the gut -- it's a cheap shot," said Arizona Milke, Christopher's father and Debra Milke's ex-husband. "She shouldn't walk free, because she's guilty." Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, whose office is handling the case, said he plans to ask the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn Thursday's ruling. Montgomery said the accusations of misconduct happened well before he took over as the county's top prosecutor and would not happen today, citing safeguards such as having detectives record interviews with suspects.... Milke has maintained her innocence and denied she ever confessed to the killing. The two men who led her child to his death in the desert were convicted of murder but refused to testify against Milke.... In its ruling overturning Milke's conviction, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited numerous instances in which Saldate committed misconduct in previous cases, including lying under oath and violating suspects' rights. The federal appeals court also asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Saldate had committed civil rights violations. Prosecutors insist Milke is guilty, but their ability to try her again was limited by the fact that Saldate said he wouldn't testify. He fears potential federal charges based on the 9th Circuit's accusations of misconduct.... Milke, whose mother was a German who married a U.S. Air Force military policeman in Berlin in the 1960s, has drawn strong support from citizens of that nation and Switzerland, neither of which has the death penalty.”

The US is in a minority as to the fact that we still have the death penalty. Nations which have the death penalty – http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html – “The Death Penalty Worldwide” According to Amnesty International, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty. In 2012, only one country, Latvia, abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In 2013, 22 countries around the world were known to have carried out executions and at least 57 to have imposed death sentences. See also U.S. Figures. For a list of the countries, see this website. I am not morally opposed to the death penalty for crimes like rape, murder, kidnapping and terrorism. It's hard to know where to put such criminals and how to keep them there forever. If there is no death penalty, there should be life without parole, I feel. To be more fair, I think the death penalty should not be used unless DNA evidence proves the suspect's guilt. Others will undoubtedly disagree with me on this.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/12/11/370090286/u-va-looks-at-ways-to-curb-drinking-at-its-frat-houses

U.Va. Looks At Ways To Curb Drinking At Its Frat Houses – NPR
Jennifer Ludden
December 11, 2014

The University of Virginia is renegotiating its contract with fraternities, which were suspended after a Rolling Stone article described a frat house gang rape. Even though that article has been called into question, U.Va. is sticking with its vow to make changes — and that includes President Teresa Sullivan's plan to crack down on excessive and underage drinking at frat houses.

But the way to do that may not be easy.

There are dry fraternities, but that idea was quickly dismissed. Tommy Reid, head of U.Va.'s Inter-Fraternity Council, told the Board of Visitors, the school's governing body, it would simply drive drinking parties underground.

"Then they're going to happen in parking lots and random places. This is a problem that is not going to be solved by simply eliminating it. It's a problem of regulation and control," Reid says.

So how do you regulate something illegal? Sullivan suggests one place to start: those big garbage cans full of hard liquor brew.

"Even an alert and careful student who tries the sweet-tasting cocktail that has many types of liquor cannot know how much alcohol it contains," Sullivan says.

A new ad hoc group that includes parents is looking at fraternities and drinking. Group member Ashley Brown, a fourth-year student, wants to designate frat brothers to stay sober and self-police during parties.

"Having one stationed at the stairs, one up in the bedrooms, one by the bar ... because you're so much more likely to go talk to someone that looks like your peer than someone that looks like your parent," Brown says.

"One of the challenges I've seen in trying to implement programs like that is, no one wants to volunteer to be the sober person," says Toben Nelson, a public health expert at the University of Minnesota. Nelson recommends fraternities use professional bar servers, even though they are costly. Professionals are more likely to ask for IDs and not serve someone who's already drunk.

Over the years, Nelson has seen a lot of schools try to curb binge drinking — usually without much success. "What they want to do is educate students about the dangers of drinking and just, if you tell them enough times with enough seriousness, that students will get the message," Nelson says.

Unfortunately, he says, they don't. What works is enforcement. But surveys show fewer than half of schools enforce their own alcohol policies.

Staige Davis, a recent U.Va. graduate, says she thinks even when the school has punished fraternities — like last year, when a string of pledges landed in the hospital for drinking too much — it wasn't harsh enough.

"What I would like to see is a culture in which one fraternity brother says to the other, 'Dude, don't do that. One, because it's wrong. But two, because we're all going get in trouble,' " Davis says.

"Well-intentioned efforts sometimes can backfire," says Peter Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy. He's seen frats be shut down only to go off campus and become wilder than ever.

"It's almost like you're playing chess. You've got to think: I make this move, the alcohol culture will respond. What's my next move," he says.
But Lake says it is possible to curb drinking if you change not just fraternities but the whole campus environment. One of the most effective policies: raising the price of a drink. No more 2-for-1 specials at local bars.

Another is to impose higher taxes on alcohol — something Virginia already has. Nelson says there's a good argument for this.

"The amount of tax revenue that's collected doesn't even come close to the social costs that those governments incur from the social problems related to alcohol — enforcement, health-related costs, transports to hospitals," Nelson says. Poor academic performance is also associated with excessive drinking, he says, which means some students are wasting a publicly funded education.

Taxpayers bear that burden, he says, which means we all have a stake in getting college students to drink less.




“There are dry fraternities, but that idea was quickly dismissed. Tommy Reid, head of U.Va.'s Inter-Fraternity Council, told the Board of Visitors, the school's governing body, it would simply drive drinking parties underground.... So how do you regulate something illegal? Sullivan suggests one place to start: those big garbage cans full of hard liquor brew. "Even an alert and careful student who tries the sweet-tasting cocktail that has many types of liquor cannot know how much alcohol it contains," Sullivan says.... "One of the challenges I've seen in trying to implement programs like that is, no one wants to volunteer to be the sober person," says Toben Nelson, a public health expert at the University of Minnesota. Nelson recommends fraternities use professional bar servers, even though they are costly. Professionals are more likely to ask for IDs and not serve someone who's already drunk.... Unfortunately, he says, they don't. What works is enforcement. But surveys show fewer than half of schools enforce their own alcohol policies. Staige Davis, a recent U.Va. graduate, says she thinks even when the school has punished fraternities — like last year, when a string of pledges landed in the hospital for drinking too much — it wasn't harsh enough. "What I would like to see is a culture in which one fraternity brother says to the other, 'Dude, don't do that. One, because it's wrong. But two, because we're all going get in trouble,' " Davis says.... But Lake says it is possible to curb drinking if you change not just fraternities but the whole campus environment. One of the most effective policies: raising the price of a drink. No more 2-for-1 specials at local bars. Another is to impose higher taxes on alcohol — something Virginia already has. Nelson says there's a good argument for this.”

I think parents could step into the picture and refuse to allow their child to join a fraternity, which could likewise be banned from the university if they allowed the student to join. That would mean the university would have to keep records on who has parental permission, of course, which they probably wouldn't want to do. The University could then cancel a fraternity's right to be on the campus if they accept a student who does not have parental permission. Unfortunately, such a plan may even be against the law if it is considered to violate the student's civil rights.

I would personally be for the colleges kicking all fraternities off the campus, and thus make it the parent's problem to solve rather than the college's. Besides, college age people are perfectly capable of getting to a bar in town if they want to get drunk. They don't really need a fraternity house. I suspect they would be less likely to get gang raped that way, too, or drink to the point that they can't stand up and die of alcohol poisoning, which has happened at least twice in the last ten years or so due to fraternity activities, especially hazing. I personally think fraternities have little “redeeming social value” except promoting the elitist class structure. Rich guys who went to a particular fraternity want their son to go to the same one -- “Rah Rah, Team,” etc. There is a problem of misbehavior of several kinds with the fraternities, though, and so they keep popping up at the center of the university's problems and in the news with tragic stories like rape and death.