Thursday, December 4, 2014


News Clips For The Day



Supreme Court liberals seek way to give pregnant workers more protections
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
December 3, 2014, 2:14 PM

The liberal justices on the Supreme Court on Wednesday suggested they're interested in ensuring that pregnant workers get on-the-job accommodations when they need them. Not all of the liberal justices, however, seemed sure of the extent of the protections afforded under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) passed in 1978.

If an employer makes accommodations for certain categories of workers but not others, "which distinctions are reasonable?" asked liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, getting to the crux of the case, Young v. United Parcel Service.

Former UPS worker Peggy Young sued UPS after the company in 2006 put her on unpaid leave rather than allow her to go on "light duty" during her pregnancy. Young requested the accommodation after her doctor told her she should avoid lifting more than 20 pounds.

UPS worker sparks Supreme Court case on pregnancy leave
Pregnancy discrimination case brings together unusual allies

Young and her allies argue the case amounts to unlawful discrimination, since the company made accommodations for other workers, including employees who lost their driver's licenses due to DUI convictions. UPS contends it followed the law because, under the policy established through a collective bargaining agreement, the company only altered assignments for workers under specific circumstances, regardless of whether they were pregnant or not -- to workers injured on the job, those disabled under federal disability rights law, or those who lost their federal driving certification.

UPS's attorney Caitlin Halligan described it to the court as a "neutral policy."

Young's case zeroes in on the language of the of the PDA, which says employers must treat "women affected by pregnancy" the same as "other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged to Young's lawyer, "You read that as an accommodation provision, and maybe it is."

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia was much more skeptical. He repeatedly argued that Young's attorneys were seeking "most favored nation" status for pregnant workers -- in other words, pregnant workers should be treated equally to the best-treated workers.

Groups defending UPS, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have argued that this level of treatment could have "untenable and implausible results" in the business world, such as prohibiting neutral seniority policies.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that UPS's interpretation of the PDA amounted to giving pregnant women "least favored nation" status. UPS's policy was broad enough to accommodate just about everyone but pregnant women, she noted.

The U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli also argued in favor of Peggy Young's case. UPS couldn't deny pregnant workers on-the-job accommodations simply because they may have denied some non-pregnant workers such accommodations, he said. "Congress chose to protect women" explicitly in the PDA, he said.

Halligan, UPS's lawyer, noted that the democratic process is working to improve protections for pregnant workers.

However, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said, "For the democratic process to work, the PDA has to get a fair reading." UPS's policy, she said, "puts pregnant women on one side of the line" and other works on the opposite side.




“The liberal justices on the Supreme Court on Wednesday suggested they're interested in ensuring that pregnant workers get on-the-job accommodations when they need them. Not all of the liberal justices, however, seemed sure of the extent of the protections afforded under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) passed in 1978. If an employer makes accommodations for certain categories of workers but not others, "which distinctions are reasonable?" asked liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, getting to the crux of the case, Young v. United Parcel Service.... UPS contends it followed the law because, under the policy established through a collective bargaining agreement, the company only altered assignments for workers under specific circumstances, regardless of whether they were pregnant or not -- to workers injured on the job, those disabled under federal disability rights law, or those who lost their federal driving certification.... Groups defending UPS, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have argued that this level of treatment could have "untenable and implausible results" in the business world, such as prohibiting neutral seniority policies. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that UPS's interpretation of the PDA amounted to giving pregnant women "least favored nation" status. UPS's policy was broad enough to accommodate just about everyone but pregnant women, she noted.... The U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli also argued in favor of Peggy Young's case. UPS couldn't deny pregnant workers on-the-job accommodations simply because they may have denied some non-pregnant workers such accommodations, he said. "Congress chose to protect women" explicitly in the PDA, he said.”

Businesses have long discriminated against women through issues surrounding their fertility. Some, in the past at least, have been passed over in the hiring process because they have children and therefore may have to stay out of work to care for them in the case of illness. They also have claimed that a married woman has outside responsibilities to her husband and family that make her unable to stay after the regular work day to complete assignments or attend mandatory company functions. Because of these things, she should not be hired, or should not receive pay and position advances within the company, such as become a high status supervisor or company official. Men, on the other hand, have used their children as a justification for higher pay and positions with the approval of the company officials, and have even been given paternity leave in some companies. A woman with children who is not married is not given similar pay and advancement. It's all the same old story to me, which was opposed in the 1970's when the women's movement became widely popular. If the Supreme Court lets UPS get away with this, it will be a shame.





POLICE OVERSIGHT ISSUES – TWO ARTICLES

DOJ to open criminal civil rights investigation into Eric Garner's death
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS December 3, 2014, 6:12 PM

The Justice Department will open a criminal civil rights investigation into the death of Eric Garner, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Wednesday evening.

The announcement follows the news that a grand jury in New York declined to return any charges against the New York City police officer who used a chokehold on Garner, who died after the confrontation.

Holder promised "an independent, thorough, fair and expeditious" investigation. Additionally, he said, the Justice Department will conduct a complete review of the material gathered during the local investigation into Garner's death. Holder said he spoke with Garner's widow, President Obama, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio earlier in the day to inform them of the Justice Department's next moves.

Garner's death was a tragedy, Holder said. "All lives must be valued -- all lives," he added.

N.Y. congressmen on Eric Garner: "What more does America need to see?"
Grand jury votes not to charge cop in Eric Garner death

Members of New York's congressional delegation expressed shock and outrageWednesday after the grand jury decision's came out, particularly since the confrontation between Garner and officer Daniel Pantaleo was caught on camera.

In July, Pantaleo attempted to arrest Garner, a father of six, for allegedly selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. A cell phone video shows Pantaleo putting his arm around Garner's neck -- even though the use of chokeholds is banned in the New York Police Department -- and bringing him to the ground after he refused to be handcuffed. Garner is heard in the video saying repeatedly, "I can't breathe!"

President Obama also addressed the grand jury decision at an event Wednesday afternoon.

"When anybody in America is not being treated equally under the law, that's a problem, and it's my job to solve it," he said, noting that he has initiated a task force to produce recommendations for improving relations between police and minority communities.

The investigation into Garner's death is the same sort of investigation opened into the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It is also the same kind of investigation opened into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, which remains "ongoing" nearly three years later.

Holder noted that Garner's death is "one of several recent incidents across the country that have tested the sense of trust that must exist between law enforcement and the communities they are charged to serve and protect."

On Thursday, Holder heads to Cleveland as part of his "building community trust" tour. He will be making other stops in the future to Memphis, Tennessee, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Oakland, California.

"As the brother of a retired police officer, I know in a personal way about the bravery of the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk every day to protect public safety," Holder said. "It is for their sake as well that we must seek to heal the breakdown in trust we have seen."

Holder acknowledged that people are likely to protest the Garner grand jury decision, and he urged people to remain peaceful.

"I have said before, throughout our history, the most successful movements have been those that adhered to the principles of nonviolence," he said.




“Holder promised "an independent, thorough, fair and expeditious" investigation. Additionally, he said, the Justice Department will conduct a complete review of the material gathered during the local investigation into Garner's death. Holder said he spoke with Garner's widow, President Obama, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio earlier in the day to inform them of the Justice Department's next moves. Garner's death was a tragedy, Holder said. "All lives must be valued -- all lives," he added.... In July, Pantaleo attempted to arrest Garner, a father of six, for allegedly selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. A cell phone video shows Pantaleo putting his arm around Garner's neck -- even though the use of chokeholds is banned in the New York Police Department -- and bringing him to the ground after he refused to be handcuffed. Garner is heard in the video saying repeatedly, "I can't breathe!" President Obama also addressed the grand jury decision at an event Wednesday afternoon. "When anybody in America is not being treated equally under the law, that's a problem, and it's my job to solve it," he said, noting that he has initiated a task force to produce recommendations for improving relations between police and minority communities.... "As the brother of a retired police officer, I know in a personal way about the bravery of the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk every day to protect public safety," Holder said. "It is for their sake as well that we must seek to heal the breakdown in trust we have seen." Holder acknowledged that people are likely to protest the Garner grand jury decision, and he urged people to remain peaceful. "I have said before, throughout our history, the most successful movements have been those that adhered to the principles of nonviolence," he said.”

“'The most successful movements have been those what adhered to the principles of nonviolence,' Holder said. Both the Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi movements were non-violent. When anyone oversteps the bounds of basic ethics to make their appeal, they lose the respect of most members of society. I don't want this country to continue to work against the civil rights of any group, especially the poor of all races and religions which are the most likely group to get injustice when they encounter police. Race is the main factor, but wealth or lack thereof is the second greatest. The poor are punished twice, first by the policemen and second by the courts when they can't afford a top notch lawyer for their defense.

The hardcore bias against blacks and Hispanics is rampant in our country. If this were Europe of the 1940's I would include the Jewish population in the group. Anti-Jewish sentiment is growing again in Europe now. The encroachment of right wing thought patterns again, something which had gone underground since the 60's, is a societal problem which we have not overcome, but merely suppressed for a few decades.

I hope Holder and the DOJ in general will be able to bring the issue to public light again, and work toward some legal changes. One of the main problems at this time is that police are given wide power to operate on their own authority rather than in a strict adherence to some basic rules of engagement. Too many police officers have simply gone rogue. I think this is very unwise and unfair. Police have become a part of the disorder, rather than the greater order in our society.





Report: Hundreds of police killings not reported to FBI
CBS/AP December 3, 2014, 2:17 PM

More than 550 law-enforcement killings were not included in FBI statistics between 2007 and 2012, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, which concluded it is nearly impossible to tally how many people are killed by police officers in any given year.

Police killings have come under increased scrutiny following a spate of fatal shootings, most notably the August shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

The Journal said it studied police killing records provided by 105 of the biggest police forces in the nation. The data showed 1,825 officer-involved killings in those departments between 2007 and 2012 - nearly 50 percent more than the FBI's tally.

Alexia Cooper, a statistician with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, said that the FBI is unable to identify which agencies choose not to report police killings.

"What we know is that some places have chosen not to report these, for whatever reason," Cooper told the Journal.

According to the Journal, local agencies are not required to provide the FBI with detailed records, including statistics that show which killings came at the hands of police officers.

States and police departments have developed their own policies that generally permit officers to use force when they reasonably fear imminent physical harm. The Supreme Court shaped the national standard in a 1989 decision that said the use of force must be evaluated through the "perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" rather than being judged after the fact. That means officers are often given the benefit of the doubt by prosecutors and grand jurors reluctant to second-guess their decisions.

Many of the cases that don't result in charges involve armed suspects shot during confrontations with police. But even an officer who repeatedly shoots an unarmed person, as was the case in Ferguson, may avoid prosecution in cases where he contends he felt at imminent risk.

"A police officer is not like a normal citizen who discharges their weapon. There is a presumption that somebody who is a peace officer, and is thereby authorized to use lethal force, used it correctly," said Lori Lightfoot, a Chicago lawyer who used to investigate police shootings for the police department there.




“More than 550 law-enforcement killings were not included in FBI statistics between 2007 and 2012, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, which concluded it is nearly impossible to tally how many people are killed by police officers in any given year.... The Journal said it studied police killing records provided by 105 of the biggest police forces in the nation. The data showed 1,825 officer-involved killings in those departments between 2007 and 2012 - nearly 50 percent more than the FBI's tally.... "What we know is that some places have chosen not to report these, for whatever reason," Cooper told the Journal. According to the Journal, local agencies are not required to provide the FBI with detailed records, including statistics that show which killings came at the hands of police officers.... States and police departments have developed their own policies that generally permit officers to use force when they reasonably fear imminent physical harm. The Supreme Court shaped the national standard in a 1989 decision that said the use of force must be evaluated through the "perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" rather than being judged after the fact....

“'There is a presumption that somebody who is a peace officer, and is thereby authorized to use lethal force, used it correctly,' said Lori Lightfoot.” This looks like the root of the police abuse of power that has occurred too often in our society. This FBI study is one piece of evidence that we need some more stringent laws in which police officer who kill repeatedly and wantonly should be charged with murder, just like the people whom they shoot are. Another piece of evidence would be a study showing the percentage of racial minority deaths at the hands of police. Finally, officers should not be allowed to shoot to kill over a suspect's “resisting arrest” or jaywalking, as in the case of the Ferguson killing. I hope the DOJ will be looking into all such cases in the near future.

See the following article on police killings for some background on the FBI statistics. The percentage of local law enforcement agencies who contributed their shooting numbers to the FBI is a shocker – just 4%. We desperately need better oversight by government on the police activities, more laws and more supervision from the heads of departments down to the cop on the beat. “The US Justice Department is investigating at least 15 police agencies in the US for systemic abuse, including allegations of excessive force, racial profiling or false arrest.”


http://rt.com/usa/180648-police-shootings-african-american/ –
Local police kill at least 400 people a year, mostly minorities
August 15, 2014

A white police officer in the United States killed a black person on average of twice per week from 2005 to 2012, according to homicide reports offered to the FBI. But this data is limited, as only about 4 percent of law enforcement agencies contributed.

There was an average of 96 such incidents out of at least 400 police killings each year that local police departments reported to the FBI, according to analysis conducted by USA Today.

The analysis comes in the wake of the fatal police shooting by a white officer of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri that has set off national outrage over US law enforcement’s aggressive use of deadly force, incongruent targeting of minorities, and a militarized posture that treats citizens as the enemy.

The FBI report shows that 18 percent of African-Americans killed during those seven years were under the age of 21. Whites killed that were under the age of 21 came out to 8.7 percent.

As USA Today noted, only around 750 agencies - out of the 17,000 law enforcement entities across the United States - offered such data to the FBI.

On top of the limited participation, the self-reported contents of the database are considered incomplete. The data are not audited after submission to the FBI, and information on “justifiable”homicides has often been at odds with independent statistics gathered on police fatalities.

''There is no national database for this type of information, and that is so crazy," said Geoff Alpert, a criminologist at the University of South Carolina. "We've been trying for years, but nobody wanted to fund it and the (police) departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it.''

Alpert added that the limited FBI data - the most complete record of people killed by US police - can show that a death had occurred, but it is reliable for little else.

"I've looked at records in hundreds of departments, and it is very rare that you find someone saying, 'Oh, gosh, we used excessive force.' In 98.9 percent of the cases, they are stamped as justified and sent along,” Alpert told USA Today.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, on the other hand, said police use of force is blown out of proportion. Based on data from the Bureau of Justices Statistics in 2008, the group said less than 2 percent of 40 million people who had contact with police passed along complaints that officers used or threatened force.

"In large part, the public perception of police use of force is framed and influenced by the media depictions which present unrealistic and often outlandish representations of law enforcement and the policing profession,'' the group said in a 2012 report.

Nevertheless, many independent studies of police shootings in major US cities have come to the conclusion that minorities are disproportionately targeted for police violence.

"We need not look for individual racists to say that we have a culture of policing that is really rubbing salt into longstanding racial wounds," NAACP president Cornell Williams Brooks told Mother Jones.

Brooks added that in the US, many people suspected of minor crimes are confronted with"overwhelmingly major, often lethal, use of force.”

Meanwhile, officers are rarely convicted or sentenced for killing a suspect.

"Unfortunately, the patterns that we've been seeing recently are consistent: The police don't show as much care when they are handling incidents that involve young black men and women, and so they do shoot and kill," said Delores Jones-Brown, law professor and director of the Center on Race, Crime, and Statistics at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, according to Mother Jones.

"And then for whatever reason, juries and prosecutor's offices are much less likely to indict or convict."

The US Justice Department is investigating at least 15 police agencies in the US for systemic abuse, including allegations of excessive force, racial profiling or false arrest.





Under Executive Action, Immigrants Are Entitled To Social Security Benefits – NPR
Eyder Peralta
December 03, 2014

We're a little late to this news, but we're pointing it out to set the record straight: The White House says immigrants protected under President Obama's executive action will be eligible for Social Security benefits.

When Obama made a Nov. 20 announcement that he was shielding from deportation some 4 million immigrants here illegally, a White House official told reporters during a briefing that those immigrants would not receive Social Security benefits. We reported that in several blog posts.

The White House is now saying otherwise.

During a briefing earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said it was his understanding that if immigrants paid taxes, they would be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Earnest said:

"The goal of the executive — one of the goals of the executive action program or executive action that the President announced, as it relates to immigration, about 10 days ago, was related to bringing those individuals who have been in this country for some time out of the shadows, giving them a work permit ... and under the books, and giving them a Social Security number and making them taxpayers. And that does mean that they're going to be filing their taxes on a regular basis and that does mean that if they qualify for the child tax credit, for example, as a taxpayer that would be something that they would benefit from. But we released this study from the Council of Economic Advisers who talked about the significant economic benefits for the country associated with bringing these individuals out of the shadows so they're not getting paid in cash under the table but actually sort of part of the broader economy."

Katherine Vargas, a White House spokeswoman, told us in an email that once immigrants register under deferred action, they become taxpayers, contributing their "fair share into Social Security and Medicare."

"And only after they've paid taxes for over a decade will they become eligible for Social Security," Vargas wrote. "As taxpayers, deferred action recipients will pay into these systems and receive the same benefits on these issues as other taxpayers."

(It's worth pointing out that all taxpayers have to work for at least a decade to receive benefits.)

Vargas added that immigrants protected under Obama's plan will not receive other federal benefits such as welfare, food stamps, Medicaid or benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

The Washington Post reports that Republicans were surprised by all this. The paper quotes Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski saying:

"First with Obamacare we were told we should pass it and then read it to find out what was in it. Now Obama overreached and acted unilaterally on immigration, which should have been vetted and authorized by Congress, and we're finding out there's more to the story than Obama and the Democrats originally told Americans."

Stephen Miller, a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, told Fox News that this new eligibility is "an attack on working families."

"The amnestied illegal immigrants are largely older, lower-wage and lower-skilled and will draw billions more in benefits than they will pay in," he said.

It's also worth noting that Obama's executive actions could be quickly erased by the next president.

We've asked the White House to explain why their official announcement first said immigrants were not eligible for Social Security. We have yet to hear back.




“... But we released this study from the Council of Economic Advisers who talked about the significant economic benefits for the country associated with bringing these individuals out of the shadows so they're not getting paid in cash under the table but actually sort of part of the broader economy."... Katherine Vargas, a White House spokeswoman, told us in an email that once immigrants register under deferred action, they become taxpayers, contributing their "fair share into Social Security and Medicare. And only after they've paid taxes for over a decade will they become eligible for Social Security," Vargas wrote. "As taxpayers, deferred action recipients will pay into these systems and receive the same benefits on these issues as other taxpayers." (It's worth pointing out that all taxpayers have to work for at least a decade to receive benefits.) Vargas added that immigrants protected under Obama's plan will not receive other federal benefits such as welfare, food stamps, Medicaid or benefits under the Affordable Care Act.... It's also worth noting that Obama's executive actions could be quickly erased by the next president. We've asked the White House to explain why their official announcement first said immigrants were not eligible for Social Security. We have yet to hear back.

First, I do think the US should work out agreements with South and Central American governments under which they oversee immigration matters themselves rather than leaving it to us. At the present time they are simply passively allowing the citizens to leave and head north to the US border, where our conservatives are complaining about their presence here, with many of those same conservatives hiring them illegally for super low wages. The black market is still “the market,” so it's okay. Right? That's the same jobs that “Americans won't take,” such as cutting up chickens in a filthy factory setting. As long as it makes money, it's good American policy and good business.

If immigrants who are allowed to work are taxed for Social Security benefits, and if they stay to work “over ten years” as required for all recipients of benefits including citizens, it seems fair that they should receive the benefits. Of course I also think they should simply pay a fee to apply for full citizenship after a waiting period of holding a job here. I'm sure Republicans will fight this tooth and nail. It will be one more thing they will lambaste Obama about.





World Climate Talks In Lima Aim To Move Beyond Kyoto Treaty – NPR
Christopher Joyce
December 04, 2014

Every year the United Nations invites environmental experts and diplomats from around the world to negotiate ways to slow global warming. This year's meeting runs this week and next in Lima, Peru.

Some say these conferences are a warming planet's best hope. Some say they're a United Nations jamboree. Most agree that recent sessions have seen mixed success at best. This year, however, negotiators think they have some fresh ideas to entice developed countries and developing ones to work together.

In 1997, the conference in Kyoto, Japan, was widely considered a breakthrough, producing an international treaty to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

But that treaty has failed to slow worldwide emissions. It will expire in 2020, and already some countries have either failed to meet their commitments or just dropped out. In the meantime, no one has been able to agree on a new treaty to replace it.

One problem is that the Kyoto limits on emissions only apply to developed countries. But now China, India, Brazil and Indonesia are among the biggest polluters. So the new plan on the table in Lima requires every country to do something to slow warming.

Todd Stern, the U.S. government's chief climate negotiator, says the new plan is "supposed to be applicable to all."

"And to us — and, I think, to a great many countries, that was an absolutely critical few words," Stern says. It signified to all concerned a new type of agreement — that they weren't just falling back on the language of Kyoto.

In addition to leaving out developing countries, the Kyoto treaty set mandatory reductions in emissions for all developed countries. But even some rich countries failed to meet them.

So the plan in Lima would be to have each government offer up its own voluntary target. And, says Stern, "to subject what they are proposing to do to full sunlight, so ... other countries and civil society and the press and everybody else can look to see what China, the U.S., Europe or Japan or anybody else is proposing to do. And you take whatever criticism you get."

President Obama and China's President Xi Jinping each made that sort of voluntary promise two months ago. They set targets for lowering emissions in the U.S. and China over the next 10 to 15 years.

But what happens if, when you add up everyone's promises, it isn't enough to keep a lid on warming? Alden Meyer, a climate expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is in Peru this week. He wonders: "Will there be a moment where all those contributions are added up and the world has to confront the reality of what it has put on the table if it's not ambitious enough?"

In fact, pledges so far from the U.S., China and Europe are not nearly enough to keep the planet from warming to what scientists say will be a dangerous level. Yet many developing countries say they can't do more because their priority is getting their people out of poverty — not limiting greenhouse gases.

This is the deep difference that negotiators in Lima hope to resolve in time for the next conference of the parties, to be held in Paris next year.

And they do have a carrot to offer. Wealthy countries have promised $100 billion a year to help poorer countries buy the technology they need to lower emissions.

There are plenty of businesses making solar panels, wind turbines and energy-saving devices for rich countries, and they're eager to sell to the developing world as well. Many are part of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, led by Lisa Jacobson.

"Once people start making these investments," Jacobson predicts, "they are going to find they are easier to do than expected, they are less expensive than they thought, and that new jobs and new economic opportunity exists. And they're going to want to do more."

It's worth noting that at the very first climate conferences, many business leaders came to oppose a treaty. Now they're lining up to profit from one.




“Some say these conferences are a warming planet's best hope. Some say they're a United Nations jamboree. Most agree that recent sessions have seen mixed success at best. This year, however, negotiators think they have some fresh ideas to entice developed countries and developing ones to work together.... One problem is that the Kyoto limits on emissions only apply to developed countries. But now China, India, Brazil and Indonesia are among the biggest polluters. So the new plan on the table in Lima requires every country to do something to slow warming. Todd Stern, the U.S. government's chief climate negotiator, says the new plan is "supposed to be applicable to all."... So the plan in Lima would be to have each government offer up its own voluntary target. And, says Stern, "to subject what they are proposing to do to full sunlight, so ... other countries and civil society and the press and everybody else can look to see what China, the U.S., Europe or Japan or anybody else is proposing to do. And you take whatever criticism you get."... "Will there be a moment where all those contributions are added up and the world has to confront the reality of what it has put on the table if it's not ambitious enough?"... In fact, pledges so far from the U.S., China and Europe are not nearly enough to keep the planet from warming to what scientists say will be a dangerous level. Yet many developing countries say they can't do more because their priority is getting their people out of poverty — not limiting greenhouse gases.”

Many conservatives are staunchly against the UN's very existence, but it holds the answer to many world problems especially such as global warming. The teeming population of the whole world – their use of fossil fuels and demands for food and water and resources – are all a part of the problem and must be a part of the solution. Thank goodness for the UN.





Military sexual assault million-dollar question: What does Obama do?
By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS December 4, 2014, 6:00 AM

The Pentagon announced on Wednesday the results of its yearlong study of sexual assault in the military. It found there were nearly 6,000 reported cases of sexual assault in the military this year, an eight percent jump from last year.

Military officials see this study as good news. They believe the increase in reported sexual assaults means that more service members trust the military justice system enough to step forward. One in four victims of sexual assault reported the crime in 2014, compared to one in ten two years ago, according to the report.

The study was delivered to the President on Tuesday. What happens now may depend on whether Mr. Obama finds that the military has made enough progress in curbing sexual assault and reforming the military justice system. Last December, he gave the Pentagon until the first of this month to issue a report on its progress and said that if he was not satisfied, the administration would "consider additional reforms that may be required to eliminate this crime from our military ranks."

Many members of Congress would be happy to see the president consider additional reforms. Chief among them is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who has led the charge for over a year to take sexual assault prosecutions out of the hands of military commanders and the chain of command and leave the responsibility with trained military lawyers.

So far, she has fallen short. Last spring Gillibrandwas just five votes shy of the necessary 60 for passage.

The Senate ultimately passed a more modest set of reforms authored by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who argued for keeping prosecution of military sexual assaults within the chain of command. Her legislation contained additional less controversial reforms, like eliminating the "good soldier" defense for those accused of assault, and allowing victims a formal say in whether their case would be tried in civilian or military court. These were added to other reforms she championed that were part of the 2014 defense authorization that passed last December. The measure stripped the ability of commanders to overturn a sexual assault conviction and required a civilian review if a commander declined to prosecute a case.

Now, Gillibrand is trying again. She has no shortage of opportunities to bring up her legislation in the coming weeks with an upcoming vote on the 2015 defense authorization bill, confirmation hearings for a new defense secretary, and she even has several allies in the new Republican Congress who might support her military sexual assault provisions.

When she held a press conference announcing a renewed push for her legislation earlier this week, Gillibrand was joined by five Republican and three Democratic senators. Eleven Republicans voted in favor of the bill in March. And even though more than half a dozen of Gillibrand's supporters retired or lost in the 2014 midterm elections, she will gain a few new backers in the 114th session of Congress, including incoming Sens.-elect Joni Ernst of Iowa and Cory Gardner of Colorado, both Republicans. Another key ally is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, who will soon become the Senate Majority Leader.

Pentagon: Reported sexual assaults up 8 percent this year
Military sexual assault prosecutions will stay in the chain of command

"With the new folks that are coming in, with the turnover in leadership...it's an opportunity to engage those newer members," Greg Jacob, the policy director for the Service Women's Action Network, told CBS News.

Gillibrand's plan is to seek a vote on her bill as an amendment to the defense authorization bill when it comes to the Senate floor in the next couple of weeks, though the defense authorization bill's sponsors hope to get it through Congress without any amendments. Gillibrand hasn't publicly said if she would try to hold up the defense authorization, but if she doesn't get her amendment vote there, she'll seek a standalone vote on the bill before the end of the year. If that doesn't work, she'll seek one in the new Congress.

But those who want to see further reforms, like Jacob, say that the president's support is what could attract the additional votes needed to pass Gillibrand's legislation. Although many top military leaders vigorously oppose Gillibrand, they have changed course in the past when the president or secretary of defense came out against a long-entrenched policy.

In 2010 it was the 17-year-old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that banned gay soldiers from serving openly in the military. When former President Bill Clinton tried to repeal the policy, he couldn't overcome the objections of his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell. Mr. Obama made a campaign pledge to repeal the policy but also secured the support Adm. Mike Mullen, his former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"If you look at the DADT review....the joint chiefs lined up behind one another and said no," Jacob said. "Then the White House got involved and it started moving forward."

He also noted that once the law was repealed, the Pentagon worked quickly and efficiently to implement it.

"The military can make these types of reforms happen once a decision has been made and we're moving forward," he said. "Clearly the president as Commander-in-Chief is the one who can provide that leadership."

It also took the support of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to help pave the way for one of the reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that has already passed, a repeal of the rule that allowed military commanders to overturn major convictions.

Gillibrand has met with the president on the issue before and during a Tuesday press conference alluded to the amount of influence she believes he still has.

"It is very possible that the president could fix this himself," she said, even though Mr. Obama cannot change the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The White House has been noncommittal so far, with spokesman Joshua Earnest saying Wednesday that the administration is still reviewing the report and there are no next steps planned yet.

"This continues to be a priority of the president's, and not just because of the human and moral elements that are involved. But the president also believes that the proper response to this situation, the proper policy, will make our military stronger and more effective," Earnest said.

The report itself, meanwhile, may not settle the debate about whether the current reforms go far enough. In an op-ed in the Huffington Post published Tuesday, McCaskill said three elements would indicate the reforms are working: an increase in sexual assault reporting, a decrease in incidents of assault, and what the troops have to say about the military justice system.

But Gillibrand's office has raised questions about the survey, pointing to the fact that it was conducted by RAND Corporation this year instead of the Defense Manpower Data Center, which usually conducts military sexual assault assessments. The new questions and methodology will prevent the kind of meaningful side-by-side comparison with past reports that might reveal any progress, her office argued.

They also argue that two of the service chiefs posted letters asking service members to fill out the survey with language that suggested they should downplay reporting of sexual assault to avoid congressional interference.

"Without your participation, Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress may draw the wrong conclusions about the dangers to which service members are exposed, which could lead to bad policies that affect all of us," Adm. Paul Zukunft, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, wrote, according to Gillibrand's office.




“It found there were nearly 6,000 reported cases of sexual assault in the military this year, an eight percent jump from last year. Military officials see this study as good news. They believe the increase in reported sexual assaults means that more service members trust the military justice system enough to step forward. One in four victims of sexual assault reported the crime in 2014, compared to one in ten two years ago, according to the report.... What happens now may depend on whether Mr. Obama finds that the military has made enough progress in curbing sexual assault and reforming the military justice system. Last December, he gave the Pentagon until the first of this month to issue a report on its progress and said that if he was not satisfied, the administration would "consider additional reforms that may be required to eliminate this crime from our military ranks."... The Senate ultimately passed a more modest set of reforms authored by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who argued for keeping prosecution of military sexual assaults within the chain of command. Her legislation contained additional less controversial reforms, like eliminating the "good soldier" defense for those accused of assault, and allowing victims a formal say in whether their case would be tried in civilian or military court. These were added to other reforms she championed that were part of the 2014 defense authorization that passed last December. The measure stripped the ability of commanders to overturn a sexual assault conviction and required a civilian review if a commander declined to prosecute a case.... But those who want to see further reforms, like Jacob, say that the president's support is what could attract the additional votes needed to pass Gillibrand's legislation. Although many top military leaders vigorously oppose Gillibrand, they have changed course in the past when the president or secretary of defense came out against a long-entrenched policy.... It also took the support of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to help pave the way for one of the reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that has already passed, a repeal of the rule that allowed military commanders to overturn major convictions. Gillibrand has met with the president on the issue before and during a Tuesday press conference alluded to the amount of influence she believes he still has. The White House has been noncommittal so far, with spokesman Joshua Earnest saying Wednesday that the administration is still reviewing the report and there are no next steps planned yet.”

“They also argue that two of the service chiefs posted letters asking service members to fill out the survey with language that suggested they should downplay reporting of sexual assault to avoid congressional interference.” This and similar intrusions into the reporting process by the “two” service chiefs mentioned here could be more widespread than reported, and there are undoubtedly ongoing incidents of assault. If the pressure on women and men not to report assaults which they endured is continued, as mentioned in a report last year, the system will still be dirty. If they still have to report to their commanding officer, it will be a problem. Too often the reputation of the service group is considered by the command structure over the abuse of a soldier. Just like the shaming that has occurred when soldiers have brain damage, severe depression or PTSD, some women and undoubtedly men as well were encouraged to “soldier on” rather than report the situation. It's not unlike the participation of the Catholic Church in stifling complaints of sexually abusive priests. It's all about reputation and maintenance of power.