Friday, December 19, 2014


News Clips For The Day


http://abcnews.go.com/International/pope-francis-celebrates-birthday-donating-400-sleeping-bags/story?id=27715183

Pope Francis Celebrates Birthday by Donating 400 Sleeping Bags
By BEN GITTLESON
 via GOOD MORNING AMERICA
December 19, 2014

After Pope Francis got a cake and an impromptu tango flash mob for his 78th birthday Wednesday, he made sure Rome’s homeless got a gift, too -- sleeping bags emblazoned with the papal coat of arms.

The pontiff donated 400 of the sleeping bags to homeless people in the Italian capital, the Vatican said, continuing his tradition of helping the poor on his birthday.

Members of the pope’s famed Swiss Guard and volunteers handed out hundreds of the sleeping bags Wednesday evening, stopping at railway stations and an area near a cemetery frequented by the homeless.

“This is a gift for you from the pope on the occasion of his birthday,” they said as they passed out the sleeping bags, the Italian news agency ANSA reported.

Francis, who is known for his humble, charitable lifestyle, also greeted eight homeless people bearing sunflowers during his Wednesday general audience.

He marked his birthday last year by sharing breakfast and attending Mass with four homeless people. On Wednesday, he received more than 1,700 pounds of chicken meat the Vatican said would be distributed to soup kitchens.

His chief alms-giver often carries out acts of charity in Francis’ name. The Vatican has started work on three showers for the homeless just off St. Peter’s Square after the Pope requested they be built, has given out checks to those in need across Rome -- and even has enlisted off-duty Swiss Guards to drive a stranded person home.

Francis has reinvigorated the office of the Vatican almoner, entrusting the almoner, Konrad Krajewski, with hitting the streets daily in his name on mini-missions to help the poor.

Krajewski told journalists last year that each morning, the pope sends him bundles of letters he has received from the faithful, along with notes like, “You know what to do,” or, “Go find them.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.




Bless Pope Francis. He has an imaginative and generous turn of mind. The 400 sleeping bags will be exhausted before all the homeless people in the city receive theirs, but it's a gesture. The chicken for soup kitchens will undoubtedly reach some of the others. I'm glad to see that he celebrates his birthday this way. I would like to see the “tango flash mob.” He's having some fun, I see. He's a very interesting Pope because he isn't the somber and rigid type. I get the feeling he likes to have fun and make contact one to one with his "sheep."





http://abcnews.go.com/Health/school-takes-blind-boys-cane-punishment-acting/story?id=27702312

School Takes Away Blind Boy's Cane as Punishment for Acting Up
By SYDNEY LUPKIN
 via GOOD MORNING AMERICA
Dec 18, 2014, 5:36 PM ET

A school took away an 8-year-old blind boy's cane as punishment for acting up and replaced it with a pool noodle, his father told ABC News today.

Dakota Nafzinger, who was born with no eyes, was listening to his music on the school bus when the driver took it away from him, his father, Donald Nafzinger said. Dakota often taps his cane to the music, but this time, his father said he threw it in the air. Nafzinger said school officials told him they thought Dakota was getting violent.

Then they gave Dakota a foam pool noodle in its place and sent him home with it, Nafzinger said.

"It is his eyes," Nafzinger, 35, told ABC News. "He said he was upset because he that's something he needs to get around with."

Dakota was born with a rare condition called bilateral anophthalmia. Nafzinger said Dakota's mother chose to call the local news media because she feared that "there weren't caring people left in this world."

"They shouldn't treat my kid any different than the kids that have eyes," said Nafzinger, who works in Kansas City, Missouri, as a stage hand. "My kid is normal except he doesn't have eyes."

The school district, North Kansas City Schools, admitted to the mistake and has since given Dakota his cane back. Nafzinger said not only was that a good outcome, but sharing the story has shown his family how many supporters they have.

"The District has reviewed the situation," North Kansas City Schools wrote in a statement. "We regret that a mistake was made in making sure the student was in possession of his cane when he boarded the bus Monday evening. The District has apologized to the family and is working to rectify the situation. When we were made aware of the mistake, corrections were made. It is always the District’s policy when we become aware of situations like this, we thoroughly and immediately investigate to ensure a safe learning environment for all students."




"They shouldn't treat my kid any different than the kids that have eyes," said Nafzinger, who works in Kansas City, Missouri, as a stage hand. "My kid is normal except he doesn't have eyes." The school district, North Kansas City Schools, admitted to the mistake and has since given Dakota his cane back. Nafzinger said not only was that a good outcome, but sharing the story has shown his family how many supporters they have.”

This is a pretty strange story all the way through. I remember one story some years ago in which a school bus driver “forgot” a mentally disabled boy and left him on the bus when they unloaded all the other students. That raised a fuss. The driver is responsible for every kid on the bus, no matter what his abilities. They should be sufficiently well trained to see that no kid is abused in any way. Taking his cane away and sending him home with “a pool noodle” instead is senseless and sounds abusive to me. If he threw the cane up into the air and the driver took it away from him he should have given it back to him before letting him off the bus. Why didn't he just verbally tell the boy to stop throwing his cane? He is only 6 years old. Were the authorities actually afraid of him?




http://www.npr.org/2014/12/19/371202059/when-a-hospital-bill-becomes-a-decade-long-pay-cut

When Nonprofit Hospitals Sue Their Poorest Patients
CHRIS ARNOLD, PAUL KIEL, PROPUBLICA
DECEMBER 19, 2014

Photograph – Keith Herie is swamped in debt from medical issues he and his wife encountered starting about a decade ago. Heartland hospital is seizing 10 percent of his paycheck and 25 percent of his wife's wages, and has placed a lien on their home.

On the eastern edge of St. Joseph, Mo., lies the small city's only hospital, a landmark of modern brick and glass buildings. Everyone in town knows Heartland Regional Medical Center — many residents gave birth to their children here. Many rush here when they get hurt or sick.

And there's another reason everyone knows this place: Thousands of people around St. Joseph have been sued by the hospital and had their wages seized to pay for medical bills. Some of them, given their income, could have qualified to get their bill forgiven entirely — but the hospital seized their wages anyway.

NPR and ProPublica have been investigating the increase in so-called "wage garnishment" by credit card and other companies. For this story, we looked specifically at nonprofit hospitals and found the practice widespread in five different states around the country.

Nonprofit hospitals get huge tax breaks — they are considered charities and therefore don't pay federal or state income tax or local property tax. In exchange, they are obligated to provide financial assistance or "charity care" to lower-income patients.

Some nonprofit hospitals around the country don't ever seize their patients' wages. Some do so only in very rare cases. But others sue hundreds of patients every year. Heartland, which is in the process of changing its name to Mosaic Life Care, seizes more money from patients than any other hospital in Missouri. From 2009 through 2013, the hospital's debt collection arm garnished the wages of about 6,000 people, according to a ProPublica analysis of state court data.

After the hospital wins a judgment against a former patient in court, it's entitled to take a hefty portion of the patient's paychecks going forward: 25 percent of after-tax pay. For patients who are the head of household, if they tell the hospital or court that information, the hospital can seize only 10 percent of each paycheck.

But Heartland, through the debt collection company Northwest Financial Services, often sues both adults in a household — garnishing one at the 10 percent rate and the other at the full 25 percent of their pay. The hospital also charges patients 9 percent interest, the maximum allowed under state law.

They're Greedy'

Back in 2005, Keith Herie was working as a truck driver making about $30,000 a year. His wife, Kathleen, was a stay-at-home mom with their two kids. The couple says they couldn't afford health insurance and Keith's employer didn't offer it.

But sometimes you have to go to the hospital anyway. That's what happened when Kathleen doubled over with a burst appendix and needed an emergency operation. "I felt sharp pains, I was vomiting, I was running a fever," she says. "It was bad."

That operation meant upwards of $14,000 in medical bills. It was a staggering debt for the Heries. They say the hospital told them they could apply for financial aid, but when he went to inquire about that, Keith says, "they basically told me I made too much."

Just a few months after the operation, the hospital expanded its charity care policy. The Heries, given their income, would have qualified under the new policy. But the hospital didn't make the change retroactive.

In 2006, the hospital sued the Heries and got a court judgment against them for the full bill plus legal fees — more than $18,000 in total. Ever since, the hospital has been taking 10 percent out of Keith Herie's paychecks.

He says that has also hurt his credit score. "Where I should be making a $250-a-month car payment, I'm making $368 in payments," he says. Likewise, the mar on his credit has prevented him from refinancing his mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates. "It affects everything," Keith says.

To make some more money, Kathleen Herie got a low-wage retail job at Sam's Club. But then Heartland hospital began seizing 25 percent of her paychecks after taxes — meaning both she and her husband were now getting their pay docked at the maximum level allowed under state and federal law. On top of that, the hospital placed a lien against their home — which also prevents them from refinancing. According to a Heartland operations memo, this is done in all cases in which the company has won a judgment exceeding $1,000.

"They're greedy," Kathleen says. "I owe more in interest on those bills than I do the bill alone."

Court records show that the couple has now paid more than $15,000 on this debt. But because the hospital has been charging them 9 percent interest on that large bill for going on 10 years now, the interest has added up — so the couple still owes $10,000 more.

"It's like a never-never plan," Keith says. "You're never going to get rid of it and you're never going to get ahead of it."

Is Seizing Wages Worth The Effort For Hospitals?

As far as the hospital's finances go — it's doing well. Heartland made $605 million in gross revenues last year, and $45 million of that was profit. "We've been very successful in terms of being profitable and being a good community asset," says Tama Wagner, chief brand officer for Heartland.

In fact, the hospital brings in so much money that all of this wage garnishment turns out to be a minor item on its balance sheet. Totaling up all the money the hospital seized from patients' wages last year, according to court records, shows that wage garnishment brought in just half of 1 percent of its revenues.

Other hospitals in Missouri have found ways to avoid suing low-income patients. BJC Healthcare, a nonprofit, operates a chain of 12 hospitals, including Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, the largest in the state. In 2013, the BJC hospital chain filed just 26 lawsuits. Unlike Heartland, BJC automatically slices 25 percent off its standard rates for uninsured patients and never includes interest on payment plans, said June Fowler, BJC's spokeswoman.

By comparison, Heartland hospital's debt collection arm filed over 2,200 lawsuits in Missouri courts in 2013. "It's not fair to those who are paying to not be aggressive with those who have the ability and aren't paying," Wagner says.

She says the hospital does everything it can to fulfill its mission as a nonprofit, charitable institution. Patients are offered multiple opportunities to qualify for financial assistance and avoid the possibility of legal action, she says. It would be better for everyone, Wagner says, "if we attempt to work on things before it gets to this level."

In recent years, the hospital has made its charity care policy more generous. Heartland's policies state that anyone making less than three times the poverty line can qualify to be billed at a reduced rate, similar to what an insurance company pays, and then get that amount cut in half. If they make less than twice the poverty line, the entire bill is forgiven.

The hospital makes every effort to let patients know that they may qualify for help, Wagner says. "Financial counselors are available if a patient asks for that." But if patients don't utilize those resources, she says, the hospital must take action.

"No one goes into this with the goal or the desire to ruin someone's life," Wagner says. "But at the same time, the services were rendered, and we have to figure out how to get them paid for."

Asked why the hospital sues more patients than any other in the state, Wagner said, "I don't know."

Last year, about 8,700 Heartland patients had their bills cut or zeroed out, according to data provided by Heartland. About half of those were uninsured, while the rest were spared full payment of deductibles or other obligations not covered by their insurance.
But uninsured patients like the Heries who don't receive charity care — either because they were turned down or never applied — are billed at Heartland's standard rates, the sticker price that insurers never pay. In 2013, more than two-thirds of the accounts the hospital's debt collection division handled involved uninsured patients, according to data provided by Heartland.

Suing Patients Who Qualify For Free Or Reduced-Cost Care

In 2010, Heartland sued Keith and Kathleen Herie again. Keith was experiencing chest pains, had tests done and ended up with new bills totaling upwards of $10,000. But this time, based on his income on his tax returns, the couple could have qualified to get their entire bill forgiven under the hospital's financial aid policy.

But they say nobody told them that. They didn't formally apply for aid. So the hospital charged them the full bill and garnished their wages again. Altogether, over the years, the couple has paid $19,779 through garnishments, according to court records. They still owe $25,739.

The Heries' case highlights a key point: When a hospital garnishes patients' wages, it learns how much they make. But even if the patient is very low-income, Heartland doesn't consider that. Once you get sued, you no longer qualify for assistance. "The time to do that would have been back when you got the bill or when the bill initially went to collections," Wagner says. Hospital spokesperson Tracey Clark says charity care is reserved for patients who "seek it and legitimately work with us."

Meanwhile, the hospital is seizing the wages of many patients who could qualify for free or reduced-cost care. Just last year, Heartland garnished the pay of more than 400 people who worked at Wal-Mart, fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's and a local pig slaughterhouse, according to court records. Clark said that Wal-Mart employees constituted "only 3.6 percent" of the thousands of patients currently being garnished by the hospital's debt-collection arm.

The employees of the local pig slaughterhouse were Heartland's most frequent target. One of the largest employers in St. Joseph, Triumph Foods processes 6 million hogs a year and has 2,800 employees, according to its website. In 2013, at least 255 Triumph employees had their wages garnished by Heartland's debt-collection arm — about one of every 11 employees.

Tammy Berry, who earns $8.20 an hour working at the fast food chain Taco John's, has been sued by Heartland repeatedly. Berry, 48, and her husband Keith, 47, were first sued in 2009. Since then, the hospital has garnished $4,500 from Tammy's pay, almost all of it going to pay off interest. (Keith Berry says he does not work and is applying for disability payments). The Berrys still owe $7,000 on that debt.

The couple have had a number of ailments, including issues with Keith's heart, but they aren't sure which hospital visits led to the suits.

Then, while still being garnished for those bills, Tammy said, she fell ill with pneumonia and went to Heartland for treatment again. The hospital's debt collection arm sued them for $4,600 more.

Federal law only protects the poorest of the poor from garnishment, and Tammy is not poor enough. If she takes home more than $870 a month, her wages can be garnished. On the weeks she works full time, the garnishments bring her take-home pay below the minimum wage.

But like the Heries, the Berrys are poor enough to qualify for free care under Heartland's official financial aid policy. In fact, the Berrys had qualified for charity care at Heartland for bills at other times, so the hospital has known that their finances were precarious. Yet, they were charged full price for Tammy's treatment for pneumonia. Clark, the Heartland spokeswoman, declined to explain this, but said, "Information has to be a two-way street."

Outside a courtroom in the county courthouse on a recent Wednesday morning, the couple slumps on a bench dejectedly. They say they're uncertain how they will absorb this latest blow.

"We're living paycheck to paycheck," Tammy says.

Under The Affordable Care Act, A Tougher Standard

If a nonprofit hospital gets too aggressive with debt collection these days, "they're putting at risk their federal tax exemption," says Mark Rukavina. He runs Community Health Advisors, a consulting firm that helps hospitals comply with the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA actually sets a new and higher standard for debt collection.

"The statute is quite clear," Rukavina says. "It says nonprofit hospitals should not engage in extraordinary collection actions before making a reasonable effort to determine whether someone is eligible for financial assistance."

And if a hospital is garnishing wages of many low-income residents in their community, Rukavina says, "it's really questionable whether that is in compliance."

Chi Chi Wu, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, says Heartland's tactics appear to run counter to its mission. Nonprofit hospitals are "given tax-exempt status because they are supposed to be serving the public and especially the poor," she says.

The NCLC has criticized hospitals in the past for charging uninsured patients higher prices than the hospitals charge insurance companies. The insurance companies negotiate reduced rates from hospitals. Wu says if hospitals are charging low-income patients more than they charge insured patients, "and then garnishing their wages on the basis of these inflated amounts," there ought to be consequences. "They should lose their tax-exempt status," she says.

The center has recommended that federal regulators prohibit debt collectors from garnishing wages based on the higher prices hospitals charge uninsured patients.

Heartland's Board Reviewing the Hospital's Practices

After NPR and ProPublica brought all this to Heartland hospital's board of directors, the board says it is reviewing the hospital's debt collection practices. Mark Rukavina says nonprofit hospitals around the country should do the same.




“Federal law only protects the poorest of the poor from garnishment, and Tammy is not poor enough. If she takes home more than $870 a month, her wages can be garnished. On the weeks she works full time, the garnishments bring her take-home pay below the minimum wage.... Yet, they were charged full price for Tammy's treatment for pneumonia. Clark, the Heartland spokeswoman, declined to explain this, but said, "Information has to be a two-way street."... Under The Affordable Care Act, A Tougher Standard. If a nonprofit hospital gets too aggressive with debt collection these days, "they're putting at risk their federal tax exemption," says Mark Rukavina. He runs Community Health Advisors, a consulting firm that helps hospitals comply with the Affordable Care Act.... The NCLC has criticized hospitals in the past for charging uninsured patients higher prices than the hospitals charge insurance companies. The insurance companies negotiate reduced rates from hospitals. Wu says if hospitals are charging low-income patients more than they charge insured patients, "and then garnishing their wages on the basis of these inflated amounts," there ought to be consequences. "They should lose their tax-exempt status," she says.... After NPR and ProPublica brought all this to Heartland hospital's board of directors, the board says it is reviewing the hospital's debt collection practices. Mark Rukavina says nonprofit hospitals around the country should do the same.”

Clearly Heartland is completely heartless, and may be about to lose its non-profit status as a result of their money-grubbing excesses. I see the need for the Affordable Care Act, as the patient who has insurance is charged less than the uninsured. There should be a federal law covering unfair hospital charging practices and requiring them to adjust the bill for those under those income levels, whether the patient applied for the bill reduction or not at the time of the treatment.

It is so interesting that the hospital, now that NPR and ProPublica have weighed in on the matter, are “reviewing the hospital's debt collection practices.” There's nothing like a little adverse publicity to change people's minds. So much of the increasingly high cost of medical care that is going on today originates with the healthcare provider. If the law regulating this worked the way I would like for it to, it would outrightly ban all of the charging practices detailed in this article. Not only would the hospitals lose their tax free status, but they would have to close their doors, pay back money taken from the thousands whom they have sued, and in addition, their board of directors and owners should be put in prison.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/18/371570033/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-arizona-drivers-licenses-for-dreamers

Supreme Court Refuses To Block Arizona Driver's Licenses For 'Dreamers'
By Lauren Hodges
December 18, 2014

Arizona hoped an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would prevent the state from having to grant driving permits to young undocumented immigrants, also known as "dreamers," who entered the country as children. A federal appeals court ruled in July of this year that Arizona must start issuing the licenses to dreamers, who under Obama administration policy are permitted to remain in the United States.

NPR's Nina Totenberg reported on the Supreme Court's Wednesday decision and the background of the legal dispute:

"When Arizona refused to allow dreamers to get driver's licenses, a group of these young adults challenged the action in court. A federal appeals court ruled that since the dreamers were likely to prevail, the state must go ahead and grant the licenses while the case is litigated. Arizona then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to block that order."

The court's decision, she says, ultimately did not go in the state's favor.

"The justices, by a 6-to-3 vote, refused to intervene, at least for now. The three dissenters were Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito."

The state has been fighting for more than two years to deny the licenses, beginning with an executive order by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in August 2012. The Arizona Republic published a timeline of the state's legal actions surrounding the issue, showing Brewer issued the order on the same day President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program took effect. The program allows those undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. for two years in order to apply for immunity.

The Tucson Sentinel reported in November that a three-judge federal panel ruled that the state's actions to deny licenses to dreamers was illegal and in violation of the president's deferred action program.

"Over the summer, a three-judge panel said there was no legitimate interest in treating the Dreamers differently. Arguing that the state's policy appears to be motivated by animosity to the young immigrants and is likely unconstitutional, the court ordered an injunction blocking Gov. Jan Brewer's 2012 executive order.

" 'We discern no rational relationship between defendants' policy and a legitimate state interest,' wrote Judge Harry Pregerson for the panel."

The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene clears the way for as many as 22,000 dreamers in Arizona to obtain legal permits to drive.




The “animosity” of the far right knows no bounds. These young people were brought into the country by their parents against their will, and they shouldn't be punished for that. I have gotten tired of the exclusionary actions by privileged white people against everybody whose “skin is a different shade.” Love thy neighbor as thyself is not the rule here, and equal justice under the law is just words on paper. I will probably never see the realization of our country's ideals. I will continue to fight for it, though.





http://www.npr.org/2014/12/18/371438087/arctic-is-warming-twice-as-fast-as-world-average

Arctic Is Warming Twice As Fast As World Average
By Christopher Joyce
DECEMBER 18, 2014

The latest word from scientists studying the Arctic is that the polar region is warming twice as fast as the average rise on the rest of the planet. And researchers say the trend isn't letting up. That's the latest from the 2014 Arctic Report Card — a compilation of recent research from more than 60 scientists in 13 countries. The report was released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Jackie Richter-Menge, a polar scientist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who collaborated with NOAA on the analysis, says the findings demonstrate the "power of persistence" in the Arctic — "persistence in the warming air temperatures and the impact that is having on this icy environment."

That's largely because of arctic amplification. Here's how it works: Normally, snow and ice cool the surface by reflecting a lot of the sun's energy back up into the atmosphere. But warming air temperatures melt snow and ice. "And when they melt," says Richter-Menge, "they expose darker regions."

Darker regions, once covered in snow and ice, now absorb more heat, like a dark shirt does on a hot, sunny day. The same thing happens when sea ice melts — the exposed water is darker and warms up.

Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers float off the coast of Qaqortoq, Greenland in 2013.

So what happens as a result of this amplification? Well, warmer water affects what lives in it. Apparently, plankton like the warmer conditions; they're thriving. Scientists say they don't know whether that's good or bad for the rest of us. But unlike plankton, polar bears don't like the warmer water and having less sea ice around.

"There's a strong connection between what's going on with the sea and polar bears," says Richter-Menge. In regions where the sea ice is holding steady, bears are doing OK, according to the report card. Where the ice is gone, bear numbers are down.

Then there's Greenland. The giant land mass is covered in ice that's a mile thick. GeophysicistBeata Csatho at the University of Buffalo has just completed the most comprehensive satellite survey of that ice cover.

"There are some places," she says, "where in the last 20 years the ice surface is just lowering, lowering, lowering very uniformly."

Csatho, whose research appears separately in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week, says she has noticed something else about Greenland's blanket of ice: Because the ice melts from the top down, the surface elevation gets lower over time. And at lower elevations, the air generally is warmer.

"As Greenland is losing ice, it gets more and more irreversible," Csatho explains, "because you get the ice into lower and lower elevations."

The research shows some exceptions to the warming trend — places where ice is building back up or temperatures are cooling. But overall, warming is winning in the Arctic.




“That's largely because of arctic amplification. Here's how it works: Normally, snow and ice cool the surface by reflecting a lot of the sun's energy back up into the atmosphere. But warming air temperatures melt snow and ice. "And when they melt," says Richter-Menge, "they expose darker regions."... The research shows some exceptions to the warming trend — places where ice is building back up or temperatures are cooling. But overall, warming is winning in the Arctic.”

It really is disheartening to see the lone polar bear looking for some polar ice to stand on while it hunts. They have taken to scrounging in people's garbage like black bears. Too many of them will likely starve over time. If they aren't clever enough to start seeking land mammals, fish, etc. to hunt they are probably doomed.

There's also the changes in our planet's flow of ocean currents, caused by all the meltwater diluting the salt in the ocean of the North Pole. Hence the formidable “snowball earth” bringing the worst possible “climate change.” That's a theory, of course, but the rationale behind it is possible. Land temperatures on earth are governed by the sea currents flowing beside it. When the “conveyor belt” is stopped by the decreased desalination of the water at the Arctic Circle it will cause the gulf stream to stop its movement bringing tropical water north, and thus the air above the ocean would cool precipitously. Whether snowball earth conditions return or not, the warming changes that we are already experiencing are going to present problems for all humans here. We need to cut those CO2 and methane emissions fast if we are to prevent a lot of practical life issues. Running out of water due to evaporation and lack of rain are occurring now. It's sad and even frightening to think of our earth as a wasteland. I hope I don't live so long as to see that.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/12/17/371397185/a-tweet-on-womens-veils-followed-by-raging-debate-in-saudi-arabia

A Tweet On Women's Veils, Followed By Raging Debate In Saudi Arabia
By Deborah Amos
DECEMBER 17, 2014

The man at the eye of the storm in Saudi Arabia is Ahmad Aziz Al Ghamdi. He's a religious scholar, the former head of the religious police in Mecca, a group officially known as the Committee for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

He has the pedigree of an ultra-conservative. Yet he stunned Saudis with a religious ruling, known as a fatwa, that is very liberal by Saudi standards. He declared that the niqab, the black face veil that is ubiquitous among women in Saudi society, is not obligatory.

His answer came in a Twitter response to a tweet he receive from a Saudi woman who had turned to him for religious guidance. She asked: Does Islam allow her to post a picture of her face on social media?

His affirmative answer went viral within hours, with more than 10,000 comments on his Twitter feed that ranged from congratulations to death threats.

When Twitter commentators asked, "What about his own wife?" Al Ghamdi promptly stepped up the controversy another notch.

He appeared Saturday on the most popular TV talk show in Saudi Arabia. The Badria program is broadcast each week from Dubai in the neighboring United Arab Emirates, where the traditional rules for women's dress are less restrictive. Ghamdi went on air with his wife, Jawahir Bint Shekh Ali, who appeared without a face veil.

She spoke to the program host, Badria al-Bishr, about her decision to show her face, not just among close family and friends, but in a broadcast that could be seen across Saudi Arabia. She covered her hair, but was wearing makeup, another point that enraged conservatives. Her husband specifically approved of makeup in his religious ruling.

Ahmad Aziz Al Ghamdi, a prominent religious figure in Saudi Arabia, said that the face veil for women is not mandatory. He then appeared on a popular talk show with his wife, who was not wearing the veil, known as the niqab.

The reaction on Saudi Twitter feeds was immediate and furious.

Saudi Arabia is a deeply conservative society, the only country in the world that effectively prohibits women from driving. Girls and women are forbidden from traveling, conducting official business or undergoing certain medical procedures without permission from their male guardian.

Gender segregation is mandatory in schools, hospitals and restaurants. Even banks have separate tellers for women. The names of mothers and sisters are not shared with others outside the family, even with best friends at school.

But norms are changing as global culture is beamed into the kingdom through social media and satellite television. Education is changing expectations in a country where the majority of the population is younger than 35. Twitter usage in Saudi is booming, considered the fastest-growing market in the world, despite regular crackdowns by the religious police.

Ghamdi has stirred a public debate over the face veil that is unlikely to end with the television appearance. The controversy reflects a wider debate in many Saudi households as urban, college-educated, professional women abandon the face veil as impractical in a work environment.

The reaction from the top religious authorities was predictable.

Saudi Arabia's grand mufti, Sheikh Abdul Al Aziz Al Shaikh, has called on Ghamdi to repent and declared that Muslim women have a duty to cover their faces.

"Some brothers even took the step to show their wives in public. This is a very dangerous thing," he said in comments posted on a local news site.

But the Twitter debate then erupted again, challenging the interpretation of the highest religious authority in the kingdom.




“The man at the eye of the storm in Saudi Arabia is Ahmad Aziz Al Ghamdi. He's a religious scholar, the former head of the religious police in Mecca, a group officially known as the Committee for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.... He has the pedigree of an ultra-conservative. Yet he stunned Saudis with a religious ruling, known as a fatwa, that is very liberal by Saudi standards. He declared that the niqab, the black face veil that is ubiquitous among women in Saudi society, is not obligatory. His answer came in a Twitter response to a tweet he receive from a Saudi woman who had turned to him for religious guidance. She asked: Does Islam allow her to post a picture of her face on social media? His affirmative answer went viral within hours, with more than 10,000 comments on his Twitter feed that ranged from congratulations to death threats.... Ghamdi went on air with his wife, Jawahir Bint Shekh Ali, who appeared without a face veil. She spoke to the program host, Badria al-Bishr, about her decision to show her face, not just among close family and friends, but in a broadcast that could be seen across Saudi Arabia. She covered her hair, but was wearing makeup, another point that enraged conservatives. Her husband specifically approved of makeup in his religious ruling.... Saudi Arabia's grand mufti, Sheikh Abdul Al Aziz Al Shaikh, has called on Ghamdi to repent and declared that Muslim women have a duty to cover their faces. "Some brothers even took the step to show their wives in public. This is a very dangerous thing," he said in comments posted on a local news site.”

“This is a very dangerous thing.” I don't understand such fear brought on by men being able to see a woman's face. Are they afraid that Allah will doom them to some form of “hell?” Are they afraid they will have to face up to their natural responses to women and keep them under control like decent gentlemen around the rest of the world do? The US torturers had their prisoners, among other things, be physically close to naked American female soldiers, which made them feel “contaminated.” The fear of our basic sexual nature must be behind this. We all have to keep it under control, but that's just part of being an adult in a law-abiding society. If I had been born into such a restrictive society I would probably have been executed by now. Religious extremism is probably the worse thing we could live under because it is profoundly illogical, and that's why I will fight those Christian fundamentalist here who are actively trying to change this country into a theocracy.









http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/17/371534533/s-c-judge-says-boy-14-shouldn-t-have-been-executed

S.C. Judge Says 1944 Execution Of 14-Year-Old Boy Was Wrong
By Bill Chappell
December 17, 2014

An African-American boy, George Stinney Jr., who was executed at age 14 in the killing of two young white girls has been exonerated in South Carolina, 70 years after he became the youngest person executed in the U.S. in the 1900s. A judge ruled he was denied due process.

"I think it's long overdue," Stinney's sister, Katherine Stinney Robinson, 80, tells local newspaper The Manning Times. "I'm just thrilled because it's overdue."

In her ruling, Circuit Judge Carmen Mullen wrote that she found that "fundamental, Constitutional violations of due process exist in the 1944 prosecution of George Stinney, Jr., and hereby vacates the judgment."

The case was brought by Stinney Robinson and two of her surviving siblings.

"It took less than a day for a jury to convict George Stinney Jr. and send him to the electric chair," NPR'S Hansi Lo Wang reports. "He was convicted of the deaths of 11-year-old Betty June Binnicker and 7-year-old Mary Emma Thames in deeply segregated Alcolu, S.C."

Matt Burgess, an attorney for the Stinney family, tells Hansi, "There were no African-American people in that courthouse. It was a jury of 12 white men. Everyone in that courthouse was white."

Stinney's family has maintained he was innocent, insisting that he was too small to carry out such a crime and too naive to handle the pressure put on him by law enforcement officials.

Bolstered by a key ally in local historian and school board member George Frierson, family members have insisted that they didn't want Stinney to be pardoned for a crime they believed he didn't commit.

"There's a difference: A pardon is forgiving someone for something they did," Norma Robinson, George Stinney's niece, tells the Manning Times. "That wasn't an option for my mother, my aunt or my uncle. We weren't asking forgiveness."

George Stinney Jr. was executed less than three months after the two girls were murdered. His trial lasted just one day. After the jury needed less than 10 minutes to declare him guilty, no appeals were filed on his behalf.

"His executioners noted the electric chair straps didn't fit him, and an electrode was too big for his leg," The State newspaper reports. The paper adds, "It took Mullen nearly four times as long to issue her ruling as it took in 1944 to go from arrest to execution."
The Manning Times notes that in her decision, Mullen granted a "writ of coram nobis, a rare legal doctrine held over from English law that 'corrects errors of fact' when no other remedy is available to the applicant."

Back in 2004, NPR marked the 60th anniversary of Stinney's death with a Sound Portrait featuring interviews with his sister, Katherine Stinney Robinson, and Lorraine Bailey, the sister of Betty June Binnicker.

The two women's recollections are strikingly different — except in some aspects.

For instance, both of them recalled how fond they were of the siblings they lost. And they both think it's possible their mothers "never got over it," as Stinney Robinson said.




“In her ruling, Circuit Judge Carmen Mullen wrote that she found that "fundamental, Constitutional violations of due process exist in the 1944 prosecution of George Stinney, Jr., and hereby vacates the judgment." The case was brought by Stinney Robinson and two of her surviving siblings.... Matt Burgess, an attorney for the Stinney family, tells Hansi, "There were no African-American people in that courthouse. It was a jury of 12 white men. Everyone in that courthouse was white." Stinney's family has maintained he was innocent, insisting that he was too small to carry out such a crime and too naive to handle the pressure put on him by law enforcement officials.... The Manning Times notes that in her decision, Mullen granted a "writ of coram nobis, a rare legal doctrine held over from English law that 'corrects errors of fact' when no other remedy is available to the applicant." Back in 2004, NPR marked the 60th anniversary of Stinney's death with a Sound Portrait featuring interviews with his sister, Katherine Stinney Robinson, and Lorraine Bailey, the sister of Betty June Binnicker.”

Justice, even when it comes too late to save a citizen's life, is at least a means of clearing his name in such a case, and that is important to the family. I'm glad to see that. People in our society have to start caring deeply about justice, rather than sitting back in our personal comfort and doing nothing. Judge Mullen, in the deeply racist state of SC, should be considered a hero, but I'm sure many “conservative” people there will be angry at her instead. Maybe bringing this into the light of day will improve some people's attitudes and behavior now, though, or even set a precedent for future legal cases.