Saturday, December 6, 2014


News Clips For The Day


MORE POLICE PROBLEMS


George W. Bush: Verdict in Eric Garner case "hard to understand"
By LINDSEY BOERMA CBS NEWS
December 5, 2014, 5:42 PM

A New York grand jury's decision not to indict a white police officer who used an ultimately fatal chokehold on Eric Garner, a black man peddling illegal cigarettes on the street, is "hard to understand," former President George W. Bush told CNN's Candy Crowley.

"I thought, 'how sad,'" the Texas Republican said in excerpts of an interview that will appear Sunday on "State of the Union." "I hadn't seen all the details, but it's sad that race continues to play such an emotional, divisive part of life," he continued.

The 43-year-old Garner, a father of six, died after officer Daniel Pantaleo attempted to arrest him in the borough of Staten Island for allegedly selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. A video of the incident obtained by the New York Daily News appears to show Garner pleading with police, "I can't breathe."

The grand jury's decision came about a week and a half after a jury voted not to indict the white police officer who killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Mr. Bush said he spoke with his former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, about the recent protests that have erupted over apparent police brutality against minorities.

"She said, 'You've got to understand that there are a lot of black folks around that are incredibly more and more distrusting of law enforcement,'" Mr. Bush said, "which is a shame, because law enforcement's job is to protect everybody."

He also briefly addressed in the clip a potential 2016 presidential bid by his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Although he joked that Hillary Clinton is practically a sister-in-law (a reference to the fact that he's referred to Bill Clinton as his "brother from another mother"), Jeb would "absolutely" beat the former secretary of state and presumed frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.




"I thought, 'how sad,'" the Texas Republican said in excerpts of an interview that will appear Sunday on "State of the Union." "I hadn't seen all the details, but it's sad that race continues to play such an emotional, divisive part of life," he continued.... Mr. Bush said he spoke with his former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, about the recent protests that have erupted over apparent police brutality against minorities. "She said, 'You've got to understand that there are a lot of black folks around that are incredibly more and more distrusting of law enforcement,'" Mr. Bush said, "which is a shame, because law enforcement's job is to protect everybody." Neither of his daughters are Republicans, so he apparently wasn't a harsh and domineering father, either, not that he seemed to be – he seems to dote on his daughters. Barbara Bush, I feel sure, wouldn't tolerate it if he tried to dominate her. Bush is a “compassionate conservative,” he once said. He did, after all, nominate Condoleezza Rice, a black woman to be Secretary Of State. His brother Jeb is married to a Latino woman. I don't think they are socially right wing, at any rate, not racist. I'd like to hear some of their family political discussions.

Rice commented: "'You've got to understand that there are a lot of black folks around that are incredibly more and more distrusting of law enforcement.'" It's no wonder, either. It used to be the KKK in white robes who abused black people, and now it's some – not all – white police officers. The good old neighborhood cop walking his neighborhood patrol route is long gone, and their benign attitude is also gone. I pray that the new interaction efforts that are occurring in Ferguson and some other cities will produce a great deal of change for the better. Meanwhile, I will keep clipping articles on the subject.





Killing Of Unarmed Black Man By White Officer Sparks Protests In Arizona – NPR
Eyder Peralta
December 05, 2014

A white police officer killed an unarmed black man in Phoenix on Tuesday, echoing similar recent incidents in New York and Missouri.

According to The Arizona Republic, Phoenix police received a tip that a man in a car was dealing drugs. They tried to apprehend Rumain Brisbon outside his Phoenix apartment complex and Brisbon ran. According to police, the officer gave chase, caught up with him and saw him dig into his pocket, before tumbling into an apartment where Brisbon's two children lived.

That's where the officer opened fire, killing Brisbon, who was only found to be carrying a bottle of oxycodone pills. The narratives are similar to what we've heard in the past: Police say the officer felt threatened so he shot.

The Arizona Republic reports that Brisbon's friends say otherwise:

"Brandon Dickerson, who said he was in the car with Brisbon shortly before the shooting and witnessed some of the incident, said Brisbon was dropping off fast food to his children in the apartment. On Wednesday evening, strewn french fries still littered the front porch.

"Dickerson said he never saw the officer try to talk with Brisbon. He also said his friend wasn't yelling at the officer.

" 'Who's gonna argue with police?' Dickerson said. 'He had no death wish yesterday.' "

The Washington Post reports that friends say Brisbon was "a gentle father of four who was dropping off fast food for his kids at his family's apartment."

By Thursday night, after police released details of the incident, protesters took to the streets of Phoenix. NBC News reports about 100 people demonstrated in front of Phoenix Police Department headquarters.

NBC News reports:

" 'This one went bad from the standpoint of how it ended, but the officer was doing exactly what we want him to do,' Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman, said at a news conference Wednesday.

"But Ann Hart, chairwoman of the African American Police Advisory Board for South Phoenix, said the shooting only reinforces 'the impression it's open season for killing black men.'

" 'We need to look into that,' Hart told NBC station KPNX of Phoenix. 'We need to take a deeper dive into why police officers are feeling compelled to shoot and kill as opposed to apprehend and detain, arrest and jail.' "


COMMENTS

anthony clark • 21 hours ago
If any readers are getting sick of reading this stuff then try to put yourself in a black mans shoes of actually living it. Yes some of them are involved with illegal activity but that doesn't mean it's open season to kill them. 
Law Enforcement use to be able to apprehend those that resisted arrest without killing them. Seems the use of deadly force is much more common and acceptable these days.

Fisherguy  InheritTheWindow • 17 hours ago
Time to march in the streets of Phoenix. Digging in your pocket doesn't mean you have a .45 pistol somehow stuffed in there. These cops get all wound up like pit bulls, with the same results. Cops should be drug-tested every week, period. No more muscle-building steroids that make you super-aggressive.

Frank Reap  Brad Svendesky• 5 hours ago
In the real world scared people get killed by ignorant cops. I've been on many cop ride alongs working in the news media for 25 years and I can tell you there is a serious double standard on the streets and many of the cops I've seen in action are racists thugs. who are barely qualified to operate a radio let alone carry or be responsible with a gun. Ignorance and bigotry will never protect and serve.

GottaSpeakUp  Pinkmist• 13 hours ago
That's not what the cop said, according to the story. The officer said HE felt threatened.

K P  Fisherguy • 15 hours ago
i know several policeman that drink too much. one tried to pick up a girl in a bar when her husband went to the restroom. when the husband returned, saw his wife was uncomfortable, he asked the (police)man to leave. the policeman ( a neighbor of mine) warned the man that he was talking to a policeman. the man and wife left.
Monday morning, when my friend went to the station to report for work, the chief of police called him into his office and introduced him to the man who was at the bar with his wife as a federal attorney working at the federal courthouse in our county. he was given a lecture on official oppression and told to go get counseling for alcohol abuse or face charges. he made the right choice.




“... police received a tip that a man in a car was dealing drugs. They tried to apprehend Rumain Brisbon outside his Phoenix apartment complex and Brisbon ran. According to police, the officer gave chase, caught up with him and saw him dig into his pocket, before tumbling into an apartment where Brisbon's two children lived. That's where the officer opened fire, killing Brisbon, who was only found to be carrying a bottle of oxycodone pills. The narratives are similar to what we've heard in the past: Police say the officer felt threatened so he shot.... On Wednesday evening, strewn french fries still littered the front porch. "Dickerson said he never saw the officer try to talk with Brisbon. He also said his friend wasn't yelling at the officer. " 'Who's gonna argue with police?' Dickerson said. 'He had no death wish yesterday.' "… "But Ann Hart, chairwoman of the African American Police Advisory Board for South Phoenix, said the shooting only reinforces 'the impression it's open season for killing black men.' " 'We need to look into that,' Hart told NBC station KPNX of Phoenix. 'We need to take a deeper dive into why police officers are feeling compelled to shoot and kill as opposed to apprehend and detain, arrest and jail.' "

This is so much like the other stories. This time his friend witnessed it, including his errand to deliver food to his kids, and then the rush into the doorway which resulted in his french fries being spilled on the porch. When he reached into his pocket, apparently to remove a bottle of oxycodone, the officer saw him as “reaching for a weapon,” and on a reflex, shot him dead. We need to stop training these police officers to shoot at the slightest suspicion of danger and, it is my understanding, they are actually taught to shoot to kill. This isn't just officer malfeasance and racism, but poor officer training. Police departments need to be examined from the top down, not just the man on the street. Again, in this case, the officer wasn't riding with a partner, so he was under greater pressure to defend himself.

The above reader comments seemed especially pertinent to me. Fisherguy's statement – Cops should be drug-tested every week, period. No more muscle-building steroids that make you super-aggressive.” And Anthony Clark said, “Law Enforcement use to be able to apprehend those that resisted arrest without killing them. Seems the use of deadly force is much more common and acceptable these days.” I don't know how much martial arts training police get, but they should be able to fight without using their pistol. They also need psychiatric examination before they are hired. An aggressive or nervous police officer is especially dangerous. I hope there will be legislation about the oversight of police forces within the next year, covering both the management level and the officer training and discipline when there is an incident.





World's Slow Response To Ebola Leaves Sierra Leone Villages Scrambling – NPR
NURITH AIZENMAN
December 05, 2014

If you think the fight against Ebola is going well, here's a grim new number: 537.

That's how many new infections were reported in Sierra Leone in the past week. It's the highest weekly tally in any country since the West African outbreak began.

International governments and aid groups have scrambled to open Ebola treatment centers in the country. But, because of safety concerns, many of these centers are accepting only a fraction of the number of patients they were built to serve.

In the meantime, most sick people are being directed to makeshift, government-run centers. Some of these are simply schools or other government buildings repurposed into a "community care center" — a place for people with Ebola symptoms to be isolated.

Baimaur Laminangbatu, who heads up a chiefdom of several hundred villages in Sierra Leone's rural north, is helping transform a school into one of these care centers.

The facility is a lot more basic than the full-fledged treatment clinic down the street, which was built with funding from foreign governments, including the U.S. That facility has sophisticated in-ground plumbing and sanitation system.

Here at the school, workers are digging a big hole in the ground. "Those are the toilets for the suspected cases to use," Laminangbatu says.

The treatment offered at the care center will be limited — medication to bring down a fever and rehydration salts that patients can drink with little help or supervision. In contrast, at some treatment centers, patients are getting intravenous drips for fluid replacements and sponge baths.

Still though, Laminangbatu and his team have stood up this community care center in a matter of days. The facility is remarkably simple. In one room, there are eleven metal cots.

"This place was a classroom," Laminangbatu says. A chalkboard on the wall still has a lesson written on it. "My name is Hawa. I'm a girl. I'm 4 years old," Laminangbatu reads off the board.

These community care centers — and larger holding centers — were originally conceived of as temporary triage posts. Health officials intended them to be places where people who might have Ebola could be isolated while they waited for an Ebola test result. If the test came back positive, then a person would be sent onto a proper treatment facility.

But right now, there's no better place to go. So sick people are getting stuck at these triage centers.

It's better than nothing, Laminangbatu says. "If we allow those sick to be in the community, Ebola will spread," he says. "And all of us will die."

But a few miles down the road, at a holding center, I met Dr. Corrado Conceda, with the aid group Partners In Health. He thinks it's unacceptable that so many Sierra Leoneans will have to die while waiting for the international response to scale up.

Why should people here get a lower standard of care than Americans or Europeans, Conceda asks? "Everybody deserves the same level of care," he says. "That should always be our goal and our guiding principle."

Conceda has begun turning this existing holding center into a full-fledged treatment facility, with IVs. He's also bringing in medical workers from overseas and trainers in a matter of days, not weeks.

And Conceda totally rejects idea that Ebola has to be such a deadly disease. "Ebola kills so many people here [in Sierra Leone] because there's not the resources to take care of patients properly," Conceda says.

As soon as possible, he wants to start using start using lab tests to monitor organ function and tweak electrolyte levels — the tools that American and European hospitals have been using to support their Ebola patients.

"Let's bring the tools, and then the mortality rate will go down," Conceda says. "There's no reason why it couldn't be 20 percent, or 10 percent, if you diagnose patients early enough before they're sick."

The key to getting there, Conceda says, is to maintain that moral outrage — that sense that as long as people are dying, what you're doing is never enough.




“It's the highest weekly tally in any country since the West African outbreak began. International governments and aid groups have scrambled to open Ebola treatment centers in the country. But, because of safety concerns, many of these centers are accepting only a fraction of the number of patients they were built to serve.... Some of these are simply schools or other government buildings repurposed into a "community care center" — a place for people with Ebola symptoms to be isolated.... The treatment offered at the care center will be limited — medication to bring down a fever and rehydration salts that patients can drink with little help or supervision. In contrast, at some treatment centers, patients are getting intravenous drips for fluid replacements and sponge baths. Still though, Laminangbatu and his team have stood up this community care center in a matter of days. The facility is remarkably simple. In one room, there are eleven metal cots.... But right now, there's no better place to go. So sick people are getting stuck at these triage centers. It's better than nothing, Laminangbatu says. "If we allow those sick to be in the community, Ebola will spread," he says. "And all of us will die."... Conceda has begun turning this existing holding center into a full-fledged treatment facility, with IVs. He's also bringing in medical workers from overseas and trainers in a matter of days, not weeks. And Conceda totally rejects idea that Ebola has to be such a deadly disease. "Ebola kills so many people here [in Sierra Leone] because there's not the resources to take care of patients properly," Conceda says. As soon as possible, he wants to start using start using lab tests to monitor organ function and tweak electrolyte levels — the tools that American and European hospitals have been using to support their Ebola patients.”

Fever reduction and a drink composed of salt and sugar dissolved in a pint of water was described in another article a little over a month ago, and it is keeping the patients from dying of dehydration until their immunity systems can produce enough antibodies to effect a cure.

This news article highlights a great need in Sierra Leone for help, but the following article – http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-ebola-effort-could-end-early-top-general-says-1417650630 – a December 3, 2014 article says that the US military effort which was sent only to Liberia, may end by next summer and that Sierra Leone has no pressing need for their help. I hope the military will reconsider that opinion and send help in there, too. I was not impressed, either, with the amount of help that the military gave in Liberia, considering the number of troops who were sent in and the cost. They still have 7 more treatment centers to build yet, though. Perhaps other nations could send more troops, equipment and build more centers, focusing on Sierra Leone. See below.

U.S. Military Ebola Effort Could End by Summer, Top General Says
Gen. David Rodriguez Signals Confidence the Global Effort Underway Will Contain the Virus
By 
FELICIA SCHWARTZ
Updated Dec. 3, 2014 

WASHINGTON—The U.S. mission in Liberia to combat Ebola could end as early as next summer, the top American commander in Africa said Wednesday, signaling the confidence U.S. officials have that the global effort under way will contain the virus.

Army Gen. David Rodriguez, head of the U.S. Africa Command, said the U.S. has scaled back its original mission in Liberia. Most of the engineering and logistics projects will be completed by January, he told reporters at the Pentagon, and some service members will begin to return home once the projects are completed.

The U.S. is unlikely to send additional troops beyond the 2,900 currently there, he said. The Pentagon initially said it would send up to 4,000 troops.

The American military will build 10 Ebola treatment centers, down from the 17 it initially pledged. Military personnel have already constructed three, each with 100 beds, and will build an additional seven Ebola treatment units that will have 50 beds per unit, Gen. Rodriguez said.

“It’s just really about the speed with which the international community could pick the things up that they were able to do,” he said.

The U.S. has made “significant” progress in helping Liberia respond to the Ebola virus, Gen. Rodriguez said. “While it is too early to declare success, Liberia has made encouraging advances in reducing the spread of Ebola,” he said.

At this stage, U.S. troops aren’t needed in other West African countries dealing with the virus, including Sierra Leone and Guinea. If the U.S. Agency for International Development requested the support of the U.S. troops in those countries, the Defense Department would be prepared to provide it, Gen. Rodriguez said. The original mission was to focus on Liberia first, and then possibly expand into Sierra Leone and Guinea, he said.

U.S. military personnel returning home after assignments in Ebola-affected areas in West Africa continue to be subject to a 21-day controlled-monitoring period. Gen. Rodriguez said the military would examine the policy in about 30 days to assess if it would continue. If commanders find that no service member has brought the virus back, they might recommend that the policy not continue, he said.

The first troops supporting Operation United Assistance arrived in Liberia in September. Army Maj. Gen. Gary Volesky assumed control of the operation in late October. Service members constructed a 25-bed hospital in Monrovia to treat health workers, which became fully operational early last month and discharged its first Ebola-free patients in late November.

As of Dec. 1, the Pentagon has spent $233 million on Operation United Assistance, in addition to more than $72 million on Ebola-related activities, including research and development. U.S. military personnel are providing logistical support, training health-care workers, testing fluid samples in mobile labs, and constructing Ebola treatment units.





For World's Oil Exporters, Falling Prices Have A Domino Effect – NPR
Jackie Northam
December 05, 2014

Imagine you're sitting back one evening, planning your holiday shopping list, knowing that every day you wait to get to the shops, the value of your money will be losing ground.

That's what's happening in places like Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria and other nations that rely heavily on oil exports.

Oil was more than $100 a barrel at the start of the summer. Now it's around $70 a barrel, and many forecasts say it could go lower still.

Falling oil prices have been good news for consumers and businesses here in the U.S. and in the many countries around the world that import oil. But it's having a domino effect in oil-exporting nations. Government budgets are strained. Economies are struggling. The currency is crashing.

The Russian ruble was trading at around 35 to the U.S. dollar this summer. But the ruble has been heading south ever since oil prices started tanking. Now it takes more than 50 rubles for a dollar.

The swift drop in oil prices caught many producers off-guard, says Caroline Freund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

"Over the last few years, oil producers had gotten used to a situation where oil was above $100 a barrel," she says. "So what had happened in these countries is they just had money to burn, so they're spending money on handouts to the public, keeping people happy, exploiting their resources even more ... and that's now on the decline."

Freund says oil producers with large populations used to government subsidies are being hard-hit. So too are those countries without the financial cushion to ride out the price crash.

"It's hardest for these countries that don't have reserves, really high reserves, like a Venezuela or an Iraq or an Iran, as compared with a Saudi Arabia or a [United Arab Emirates] or Kuwait, where they've really piled up the reserves and can hold out for quite some time," she adds.

Part of the reason oil prices are so low right now is oversupply, which is linked to slowing demand in countries such as China. It's also due to a strong dollar, says Donald Dony, an energy analyst in Victoria, British Columbia.

"At this point right now, the U.S. dollar, the U.S. economy is definitely hands and feet over top of just about anybody else out there, certainly better than Europe, and is stronger than most of the Asian economies," he says. "So as the U.S. dollar goes up, other currencies start to go down."

And commodities like oil are linked to the U.S. dollar. So countries with a weakened currency are likely to buy less oil, which in turn affects the exporting nations.

While the current price of oil is at its lowest level since 2010, it's been much lower in the past three decades, says Brenda Shaffer, an energy expert and visiting professor at Georgetown University. Even when compared with today's prices, oil-dependent nations have always managed to get by.

"These countries, they've seen it when it's been up, when it's been down. Even President [Vladimir] Putin himself has been president of Russia in every type of oil price — the low, the high, the crisis," Shaffer says. "I think it's nothing new for these governments."

Still, Shaffer says countries that depend on a certain oil price to balance their budgets could be vulnerable to instability. But Shaffer says it's premature to think that nations will fundamentally change their foreign policy behavior.

"Things like Russia pulling out of Crimea, or Iran changing its stance on the nuclear program, things that these countries see as national interest, they're not going to give up because of the oil price," Shaffer adds.

She says there's an intricate relationship between oil prices and geopolitics: It's like a kaleidoscope, where one change can set off unintended consequences. She says Washington may take satisfaction that Russia is feeling a financial pinch, but low oil prices could also signal a slowing in the global economy.




“But it's having a domino effect in oil-exporting nations. Government budgets are strained. Economies are struggling. The currency is crashing.... Freund says oil producers with large populations used to government subsidies are being hard-hit. So too are those countries without the financial cushion to ride out the price crash. "It's hardest for these countries that don't have reserves, really high reserves, like a Venezuela or an Iraq or an Iran, as compared with a Saudi Arabia or a [United Arab Emirates] or Kuwait, where they've really piled up the reserves and can hold out for quite some time," she adds.... Part of the reason oil prices are so low right now is oversupply, which is linked to slowing demand in countries such as China. It's also due to a strong dollar, says Donald Dony, an energy analyst in Victoria, British Columbia.... So countries with a weakened currency are likely to buy less oil, which in turn affects the exporting nations. While the current price of oil is at its lowest level since 2010, it's been much lower in the past three decades, says Brenda Shaffer, an energy expert and visiting professor at Georgetown University. Even when compared with today's prices, oil-dependent nations have always managed to get by.... But Shaffer says it's premature to think that nations will fundamentally change their foreign policy behavior. "Things like Russia pulling out of Crimea, or Iran changing its stance on the nuclear program, things that these countries see as national interest, they're not going to give up because of the oil price," Shaffer adds.... She says Washington may take satisfaction that Russia is feeling a financial pinch, but low oil prices could also signal a slowing in the global economy.”

I hope a slowing in the global economy doesn't result in a depression worldwide. That was the situation when WWII broke out, and with ISIS so active in the Middle East, there is the spark necessary for a wider war there. We have so much unemployment too, that large numbers of US citizens in the working class will suffer severely. With our social safety net, the results on the very poor won't be as great as they were in the 1930's depression, but if Middle Class people continue to lose jobs they will be forced on the government aid as well, and there may be more homelessness when they lose their houses. We may be in for a very bad time soon if this continues.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/03/why-some-republicans-want-to-cancel-the-state-of-the-union-address/

Why some Republicans want to cancel the State of the Union address
By Paul Waldman 
December 3

The Post’s latest report about negotiations among congressional Republicans on how to proceed with a budget and striking back against President Obama’s immigration actions contained this colorful nugget:

Late Tuesday, Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.) called for Boehner to not invite Obama to deliver the State of the Union address next year. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) suggested that the budgets for White House operations, including for Air Force One, should be decreased. Other conservatives have mentioned censuring the president, impeaching him or suing the administration over its immigration actions.

“I’d rather defund Air Force One,” Huelskamp said. “Congress took a 19 percent cut on its budgets — we should do the same for the White House.” On the State of the Union, he added: “In the spirit of George Washington, he could send it to us in writing. It’d save some time.”

The idea of disinviting Obama from delivering the State of the Union address is apparently gaining currency on the right. Though it seems like the pettiest of actions, there’s something significant driving it: A fundamental unwillingness to accept that Barack Obama is legitimately the President of the United States.

This isn’t new, but I suspect we’re going to be seeing more ideas like this one pop up, as Republicans find themselves stymied on policy and look for ways to strike out at the president.

When I make reference to Republicans’ unusually powerful loathing for this president, I often get emails from conservative readers saying that I’m wrong; they don’t hate him, they just disagree with his policies. These protests are a little hard to take seriously when among other things so many on the right spent years questioning whether Barack Obama is actually an American at all. The fact that the birther movement has faded recently should not make us forget that the president of the United States was literally forced to produce his birth certificate to prove to his political opponents that he is indeed an American and therefore eligible to be president.

And that was just the most visible manifestation of the unwillingness of so many to accept the legitimacy of his presidency. This is not a fringe belief held only by a few. One poll taken just after the 2012 election found that 49 percent of Republicans believed that ACORN had stolen the election for Obama. That would have been a remarkable feat for any organization, but particularly so for ACORN, since it went out of business in 2010. The absurdity of that particular idea aside, a simple refusal to accept that Barack Obama is legitimately the president is common from the bottom to the top of the conservative movement, among ordinary voters, activists, media figures, and even elected officials. Republican Rep. Peter King said last yearthat there are “probably 30 or 40″ of his colleagues who refuse to accept the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency.

So the only surprising thing is that it took them so long to get around to discussing the cancellation of the State of the Union address. The address is reliably boring no matter who the president is, and it’s true that for much of the country’s history it was delivered in writing. But it serves an important purpose. It’s the only time when the entire federal government — all of Congress, most of the Supreme Court, and the cabinet, representing the three branches — gathers in one room. It says to the nation, this is your political leadership. They have their differences, but once a year they assemble to hear what the president has to say. Their presence is an implicit validation of the entire political structure and the president’s place atop it.

Naturally, some Republicans bristle at being forced to participate in this public validation of the president’s power and position. But what else can they do? I was particularly taken with Rep. Huelskamp’s suggestion that they “defund Air Force One.” After all, what is Barack Obama doing flying around in the president’s plane? Who does he think he is?

In the next two years there are going to be plenty of times when Republicans will feel hindered and frustrated by the president on matters of policy. And when Obama uses his executive authority, they’ll be particularly incensed — if you think the president shouldn’t really be president at all, it’s all the more galling when he brazenly employs the powers of the office you don’t think he deserves to hold. So even if Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are smart enough not to cancel the State of the Union address, we could to see increasing pressure from inside and outside Congress to find ways to chip away at the accoutrements and prerogatives of the presidency. They’ll inevitably fail, but the attempt tells us quite a bit about this era of American politics.




“Late Tuesday, Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.) called for Boehner to not invite Obama to deliver the State of the Union address next year. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) suggested that the budgets for White House operations, including for Air Force One, should be decreased. Other conservatives have mentioned censuring the president, impeaching him or suing the administration over its immigration actions. “I’d rather defund Air Force One,” Huelskamp said. “Congress took a 19 percent cut on its budgets — we should do the same for the White House.” On the State of the Union, he added: “In the spirit of George Washington, he could send it to us in writing. It’d save some time.”... When I make reference to Republicans’ unusually powerful loathing for this president, I often get emails from conservative readers saying that I’m wrong; they don’t hate him, they just disagree with his policies. These protests are a little hard to take seriously when among other things so many on the right spent years questioning whether Barack Obama is actually an American at all.... This is not a fringe belief held only by a few. One poll taken just after the 2012 election found that 49 percent of Republicans believed that ACORN had stolen the election for Obama. That would have been a remarkable feat for any organization, but particularly so for ACORN, since it went out of business in 2010. The absurdity of that particular idea aside, a simple refusal to accept that Barack Obama is legitimately the president is common from the bottom to the top of the conservative movement, among ordinary voters, activists, media figures, and even elected officials. Republican Rep. Peter King said last yearthat there are “probably 30 or 40″ of his colleagues who refuse to accept the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency.... They have their differences, but once a year they assemble to hear what the president has to say. Their presence is an implicit validation of the entire political structure and the president’s place atop it. Naturally, some Republicans bristle at being forced to participate in this public validation of the president’s power and position. But what else can they do? I was particularly taken with Rep. Huelskamp’s suggestion that they “defund Air Force One.” After all, what is Barack Obama doing flying around in the president’s plane? Who does he think he is?”

The increasing racism in our society and the increasingly right wing leaning in most ways of about half of our population – including things like trying to disrupt the American public school system, interrupt the funding of the Social Security system and Medicare, the threat to defund Affordable Healthcare, the ongoing dispute over global warming as a man-made phenomenon, and the recent Texas move to teach Creationism in the state schoolbooks there – all of it is uncivilized in my view. The poorest of the whites are tending to vote Republican, not because their policies will improve their financial situations, but because the Republicans are backing ignorant and race-based policies. It is none other than evil. Their brand of Christianity doesn't improve their personal viewpoints any, and instead solidifies it as they try to get laws changed to back up their positions. Meanwhile we are fighting a new race war against, not the KKK, but the police departments across the nation. The whole situation is discouraging, and impels me to get more and more liberal as time goes on. This is a war on all levels.






Jordan's king: Fight on ISIS "a third world war"
CBS NEWS
December 5, 2014, 7:45 AM

President Obama will meet with Jordan's King Abdullah II at the White House Friday morning to discuss the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an ongoing civil war in Syria and Middle East peace.

The leader believes to fight the extremists in ISIS, the Muslim world must come together. "This is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong."

He told CBS News' Charlie Rose this is a fight between good and evil and Muslims must take a stand to defeat the extremists.

Abdullah believes the threat posed by ISIS is "a third world war by other means." He explained his plan to defeat the threat: "... I hope the short term part of it is going to be the military, the medium term is the security aspect of it. But the long term is going to be the ideological one."

He said he is not working alone in the fight. Arab and Muslim leaders around the world are beginning to work together, but he was unwilling to give details.

The world leader believes the battle against extremism can be won. "This is a war inside of Islam. So we have to own up to it. We have to take the lead. And we have to start fighting back. And all of us have to make that decision and stand up to the plate and take our responsibilities."

But even with the threat of ISIS, he still considers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the core issue in the Middle East. "You know, whether it's true or not, that argument is still being used by the extremists. And countries around the world realize that they have to solve the problem for their benefit."




“The leader believes to fight the extremists in ISIS, the Muslim world must come together. "This is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong." He told CBS News' Charlie Rose this is a fight between good and evil and Muslims must take a stand to defeat the extremists.... He explained his plan to defeat the threat: "... I hope the short term part of it is going to be the military, the medium term is the security aspect of it. But the long term is going to be the ideological one." He said he is not working alone in the fight. Arab and Muslim leaders around the world are beginning to work together, but he was unwilling to give details.... "This is a war inside of Islam. So we have to own up to it. We have to take the lead. And we have to start fighting back. And all of us have to make that decision and stand up to the plate and take our responsibilities." But even with the threat of ISIS, he still considers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the core issue in the Middle East. "You know, whether it's true or not, that argument is still being used by the extremists. And countries around the world realize that they have to solve the problem for their benefit."

I think the Islamic nations do indeed need to drop their internal arguments such as Sunni vs Shia, or their fear of the Kurds, and they definitely do need to work on the rabidly aggressive Fundamentalism that has emerged and taken over in too many places during the last decade or two. Boko Haram is another group like ISIS that has no social conscience that I can detect, and is barbaric in its brutality. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are little better – just another part of the same problem. The way women are treated in these societies also should be rectified before Islam will really be as enlightened a religion as Christianity and Judaism.

The UU church that I belong to places all world religions together as being sources of wisdom, but all of those that mistreat and even physically abuse their women and girls will never be equal in value, in my opinion. India is slowly improving its antifeminism, but there are still gang rapes there to “punish” women, and the Hindu men about ten years ago were in the news for their “bride burnings”. The wife burnings happened when the bride's family couldn't pay the promised dowry. It's all not really about religion, but about masculine egotism, cruelty, and a very spoiled upbringing of boys within Indian homes. The mother sets the abuse of women up as she raises a pampered man who does no work. If the father in the household beats the mother that makes it worse, too.

I'm glad to see the Jordanian leader say these things, because I agree completely with him -- this "a war inside Islam," and a big problem. ISIS is on it's way to taking over long established nations there if those Arabs won't stand up and fight. They need to recruit the Kurds, too, and make peace with them over their religious differences. They are fighters and deserve a share of some land of their own there.





A Burger Joint Pays $15 An Hour. And, Yes, It's Making Money – NPR
Allison Aubrey
December 04, 2014

Fast-food workers rallied around the country Thursday, calling for a minimum wage of $15 an hour. But in suburban Detroit, a small but growing fast-casual burger and chicken chain has figured out how to pay higher wages and still be profitable.

When Moo Cluck Moo opened its first location almost two years, the starting pay for all workers was $12.00 an hour. The idea, according to co-founder Brian Parker, was to train everyone to multitask.

No one is just flipping burgers. All of the workers are expected to be jacks-of-all-trades: They bake buns from scratch daily, they house-make aioli and prepare made-to-order grass-fed burgers and free-range chicken sandwiches.

And, now, says Parker, the investment is paying off. Revenue is up at the chain's two locations. And workers are sticking around. And their pay now? It's up to $15 an hour. By comparison, a typical fast-food worker in the U.S. makes about $8 or $9 an hour.

"Because of our low turnover, and the fact that people are really into their jobs, $15 an hour wasn't a big stretch," Parker says.

Parker says there's savings in not having to constantly train new hires, and his workers are empowered because they're given so much responsibility.

When we stopped in for a visit this week, manager Dan Chavez was standing at the grill preparing a made-to-order Moo Burger. He's been cooking in restaurants for 15 years, so he knows how to move quickly from the grill to the fryer. He also oversees baking and talks to customers.

"It's more fun than I've had at other jobs, because we get to do everything ourselves," he says.

And Chavez says the higher-than-average wages are a big part of his job satisfaction.

"It feels good just to be able to pay my bills and enjoy a little of life," Chavez says.

In the beginning, Parker wasn't sure the higher wages would be sustainable. But now the restaurants are thriving. "We're ... going to show a profit in the last quarter," Parker says. And he and his partner are planning to add new locations.

Now in order to make this model work, customers have to pay a little more.

Grass-fed Moo Burgers on a homeade buns start at about $6. This compares to a Big Mac, which retails in the U.S. for about$4.80. That's a price differential of just over a dollar.

In starting the company, the founders says they were motivated by the lack of options. "We couldn't fine an affordable place to take our kids and grandkids that didn't have hormones, preservatives," they write on the company's website.

They now vet their suppliers to make sure all the food they buy meets their specifications, and they source their beef from Joseph Decuis Wagyu Farm in Indiana.

"We're building a brand," Parker says. And part of getting Moo Cluck Moo out there is telling people about its sourcing of beef and chicken, and talking about its commitment to paying people a living wage.

"I'm not driving around in a six-figure sports car," Parker says. But he does have his eye on the future.

So are small burger chains like Moo Cluck Moo — which are willing to pay workers more and serve more upscale menus — going to put pressure on the giants such as McDonald's and Burger King to raise wages?

"No, I don't think so," says Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

Strain says there are two different models here, and two different kinds of customers. These new chains appeal to people who are willing to pay more for food prepared from scratch. But, he says, traditional fast-food chains are not going to go away.

"McDonald's appeals to people who like the Dollar Menu, and to people for whom that price point is appealing," he says.

And McDonald's will likely continue to offer its Dollar Menu, and other value pricing, as long as it can find people who are willing to work for the kind of wages it currently offers.

But if workers become too expensive, Strain argues we'll start to see more automation — and fewer fast-food jobs.

"Imagine if some machine gets invented that can operate the french fry machine at McDonald's, " Strain says. That's one less worker needed at the fryer.

This automation has been happening for a while. Strain says. When he was a kid, it was a person — not a soda machine — that filled your cup.




This is an interesting article, but a more expensive menu is not going to be acceptable to those who don't want to pay that much – or simply can't. There will still be a place for low budget eating out, and I doubt if fast food workers will succeed in getting as much as $15.00 an hour anyway. They should get $9.00 or $10.00, though, and the big fast food chains can afford to pay that. They will retain their market share and will still pay their top level management hugely, I think. I doubt if they will all go to automation as an option. Buying new machines is expensive, too, and I predict they will lose business over such a change. I've always found eating out of machines unappetising.

I personally, if Wendy's (who have recently raised their menu prices) won't give me a double stack through their drive through window, will shop there less often and go more to my nearby Pizza Hut where I can get a large pizza for about $10.00. I cut them up, place them in freezer bags and freeze them for another day's meal, which makes the pizza as inexpensive as Wendy's burgers or nearly so.

The whole restaurant industry is miserly toward its cooks and servers, not just the fast food places, and if they are forced to pay more for labor, they will undoubtedly raise the prices on their food. I still think all restaurant workers should get $10.00 an hour. I waitressed the summer after my high school graduation, and that was hard work. Besides, $7. 25 an hour is poverty wages. It's working hard, but not getting a living wage. That low a minimum wage perpetuates the grinding poverty in which so many people in this wealthy country live, including many whites, though they continue to consider themselves to be superior to blacks and Hispanics. What we need is a powerful new union movement in the US and the world, as we had in the fifties. There's no poverty program like a fair living wage.