Saturday, January 31, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-killed-by-denver-police-cited-for-resisting-arrest-3-weeks-ago/

​Teen killed by Denver police cited for resisting arrest 3 weeks ago
CBS/AP
January 30, 2015

DENVER -- A 17-year-old girl who was shot to death by Denver police while driving a stolen car was accused in a separate incident of eluding a police officer and resisting arrest just three weeks before her death, court records obtained Friday show.

State troopers cited Jessica Hernandez on Jan. 1 for speeding down a highway north of Denver in her mother's car after the girl's driver's license had been revoked.

The citation shows Hernandez was driving 80 mph in a 55 mph zone, and the trooper noted that she was resisting arrest in a way that risked serious injury to him or others. It does not provide other details of the case.

Colorado State Patrol Trooper Josh Lewis would not comment on the case. Hernandez's uncle, Alberto Hernandez, referred questions to an attorney who did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Court records show the Adams County district attorney's office had the citation dismissed after Hernandez died.

Police say Hernandez was shot on Monday after she drove a stolen car toward an officer in a residential alley in Denver. The killing came amid a national debate about police use of force sparked by incidents in Missouri and New York.

The Denver shooting also brought protests and a demand for a special prosecutor. On Friday, Hernandez's family called for a federal civil rights investigation into her death.
In a statement released in English and Spanish, Hernandez's parents said they want the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate her death, and for U.S. Attorney John Walsh in Colorado to oversee the criminal investigation of the officers involved.

The family said it doesn't trust Denver police to conduct a fair and timely investigation, and that the department has a history of exonerating its officers.

Walsh's spokesman Jeff Dorschner said Walsh was aware of the request but declined further comment.

Wednesday, the teenager's mother told CBS Denver she wants an independent autopsy performed.

"I want another autopsy on my daughter so we can know how much damage they did," Laura Sonya Rosales Hernandez, speaking in Spanish inside the trailer home where her daughter lived with five siblings. "I want to know, how did this happen? I want to know everything."

The statement came after the parents retained lawyer Qusair Mohamedbhai, who has been involved in a number of other high-profile civil rights cases against Denver police and sheriff's deputies.

Mohamedbhai represented a former Denver jail inmate to whom the city paid $3.3 million in July to settle a jail abuse lawsuit.

The allegations in the lawsuit filed by Jamal Hunter were so egregious they prompted a federal judge to request a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the city's police and the sheriff's departments.

Dorschner also declined to comment on that request.

Denver Police Chief Robert White has said it's too soon to judge whether Officers Daniel Greene and Gabriel Jordan acted appropriately in shooting Hernandez, but that the officers repeatedly told her and four other teens to get out of the stolen car.

According to CBS Denver, White said Monday that as officers Gabriel Jordan and Daniel Greene approached the vehicle, the driver struck Jordan car in the leg with the car, at which time the officer fired his gun and hit Hernandez. White clarified that Thursday, saying it's unclear how Jordan was injured.

"The officer did receive a fractured leg. Whether it occurred as a result of his attempt to get out of the way of the moving vehicle or being struck by the moving vehicle, that's part of the investigation," White said.

Two other teenage girls who were in the car told CBS Denver officers did not yell commands before they shot Hernandez through the driver's side window.

"They didn't have no reason to shoot her. They didn't even give her a warning, like say, 'Get out or we're going to shoot you.' They just shot her," one of the girls said. "We didn't know why we were being harassed by the police, they came for no reason. They didn't even have their lights up when they pulled up. And she tried to leave and they shot her. That's when we wrecked and went unconscious, and that's when supposedly a cop... got hurt."

The girl also disputed that Jordan was injured, telling CBS Denver, "That cop wasn't hurt because when I was on the floor, lying there, I saw that cop standing there and he wasn't injured."

No one has been charged with the theft of the car, a 2000 Honda Civic that was reported missing Sunday night in Federal Heights.

The shooting was the fourth time in seven months that Denver police have fired at a moving vehicle after perceiving it as a threat.

Department policy encourages officers to move out of the way of a moving car rather than use their firearm. But it also allows them to shoot if they have no other reasonable way to prevent death or serious injury.

"As it related to shooting and vehicles, our officers are directed that we do not shoot into moving vehicles unless their life or someone else's life is in immediate danger," White said. "And I will tell you that even if they are in harm's way for that particular time, if there's any particular way that they can remove themselves from that dangerous situation they have a responsibility to do that."

The incidents have prompted the department and the city's independent monitor to review policies and training related to such shootings. “Police say Hernandez was shot on Monday after she drove a stolen car toward an officer in a residential alley in Denver. The killing came amid a national debate about police use of force sparked by incidents in Missouri and New York.”




“State troopers cited Jessica Hernandez on Jan. 1 for speeding down a highway north of Denver in her mother's car after the girl's driver's license had been revoked. The citation shows Hernandez was driving 80 mph in a 55 mph zone, and the trooper noted that she was resisting arrest in a way that risked serious injury to him or others. It does not provide other details of the case. Colorado State Patrol Trooper Josh Lewis would not comment on the case. Hernandez's uncle, Alberto Hernandez, referred questions to an attorney who did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Court records show the Adams County district attorney's office had the citation dismissed after Hernandez died..... The shooting was the fourth time in seven months that Denver police have fired at a moving vehicle after perceiving it as a threat. Department policy encourages officers to move out of the way of a moving car rather than use their firearm. But it also allows them to shoot if they have no other reasonable way to prevent death or serious injury. "As it related to shooting and vehicles, our officers are directed that we do not shoot into moving vehicles unless their life or someone else's life is in immediate danger," White said. "And I will tell you that even if they are in harm's way for that particular time, if there's any particular way that they can remove themselves from that dangerous situation they have a responsibility to do that."

The facts as given in this CBS article aren't as clear as I would have liked, however it looks as though on January 1 Hernandez was cited for driving 80 mph in a 55 mph zone, and then “three weeks later” according to the headline and “on Monday” according to the article there was a second and deadly incident in which the girl drove toward and hit a police officer in an alley. Another teen girl who was in the car said the police didn't give a warning that they were about to shoot, while the police chief said that “the officers” gave repeated warnings for them to get out of the car. The female witness stated that the officer was clearly standing up after being struck, so he couldn't have had a broken leg. The girls were unarmed, apparently, but if the officer did shoot after Hernandez ran him down with her car, the officers were indeed shooting “in self defense.”

Maybe more on this case will appear in later news reports. It's unusual for girls to be involved in the stealing of an auto, but driving at a high speed is not unusual for girls, and running someone down with a car is an event that happens fairly often when the driver is frightened. That's no excuse, of course. It's still assault with a deadly weapon. I did sympathize with the Asian man in New York City last year who ran over a biker who had pulled directly in front of him and slowed down, while some 40 bikers chased him. He truly did fear for his life. He was not charged by the police for hitting the biker, either. Justice does sometimes get done.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michelle-obama-weighs-in-on-american-sniper/

Michelle Obama weighs in on "American Sniper"
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
January 30, 2015

First Lady Michelle Obama on Friday praised the recently-released movie "American Sniper," a film about a soldier in the Iraq War that's become a flashpoint between liberals and conservatives.

At an event with film industry leaders focused on expanding the public's understanding of veterans' issues, Mrs. Obama said she had a chance to watch "American Sniper" on Air Force One.

"While I know there have been critics, I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I've heard firsthand from military families over these past few years," she said. "This movie reflects those wrenching stories that I've heard -- the complex journeys that our men and women in uniform endure. The complicated moral decisions they are tasked with every day. The stresses of balancing love of family with a love of country. And the challenges of transitioning back home to their next mission in life."

Seth Rogen apologizes for "American Sniper" tweets

Mrs. Obama said her perspective on veterans' issues has been changed after meeting with veterans and military families personally. "But for all those folks in America who don't have these kinds of opportunities, films and TV are often the best way we have to share those stories," she said.

A largely partisan debate over the movie erupted after liberal filmmaker Michael Moore said that snipers shouldn't be held up as heroes, prompting some veterans and conservative pundits to lash out at him. Actor Seth Rogen also ended up walking back a comment about the movie that some interpreted as a negative critique.

Last week, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement commending the movie as an "outstanding cinematic achievement honoring the life of a genuine American hero, Chris Kyle."

"This film depicts with subtlety and compassion those brave few who serve our nation in uniform, their experiences in the horror of war, the burdens they often bear upon returning home, and the untold sacrifices of their families," McCain said. "It is deeply regrettable that obsessive critics of U.S. foreign policy have sought to disparage this film and denigrate the memory of a noble American warrior."




I don't plan to go see this movie. I saw part of the trailer on TV and it looked like the emotionality would be stereotyped or sentimental and perhaps not acted very well. The comments of Rogen that it resembles a Nazi propaganda film makes me less likely to see it, though he later took back his comment. I think we don't need hate-mongering films. There should be a better way to show that soldiers have lived through terrible things that leave scars on them forever. The right has enough of that already. The writer of the CBS article stated that the movie frequently used the dehumanizing term “savages” for Islamic radicals. While I don't actually disagree with that description of the things that ISIS has done, it would be unfair to apply it to Islamic people who are not involved with ISIS, al Qaeda, etc., and who are fighting for their lives, or more often simply fleeing the war zone.

We have a genuine ongoing real life problem with Islamic fundamentalist groups and they should be fought as long as they are menacing other religious groups anywhere in the world. The threat of death for failing to convert is primitive to me, so I might call it “savage.” That's why I object to fundamentalism anywhere, including in the US, where some Islamic people and Sikhs have already been abused by American citizens. That kind of hatred is being fanned by films such as American Sniper, I'm afraid, since the conservatives are objecting so strongly to two rather mild comments by Hollywood people. All Moore said was that snipers shouldn't be held up as heroes because they shoot from a distance away rather than fighting at close hand. That kind of thing is now being done by the US against ISIS, of course, while the Kurds get down on the ground and fight at close range. Other than bombing and dropping some (a small amount, I understand) of arms and ammunition to the Kurds, we have not helped much at all, and I feel that whttp://www.npr.org/e should.

That's why I have so often praised the Kurds. They're almost the only Middle Eastern group who have actually stood up for their land and culture. Even their women fight. Of course, Moore also said that American Sniper is “a mess of a film,” and that Clint Eastwood actually threatened to kill him, in the Salon article below. In it Moore says that Eastwood is becoming a bit unbalanced, though not in so many words. I personally feel that the Fox News version of conservatism is definitely on the edge, mentally and politically, as so many of the things they say violate the personal freedoms of Americans and our national safety net. The Tea Party Republicans especially have advocated some things that are almost certainly unconstitutional, and definitely radical.

See the following website: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/30/michael_moore_on_eastwood_threat_sniper_american_sniper_is_a_mess_of_a_film/.
Michael Moore on Eastwood threat, “Sniper”: “American Sniper is a mess of a film”
SALON STAFF
THURSDAY, JAN 29, 2015

In a new Facebook post tonight, Moore confirms Eastwood's "I'll shoot you" threat, calls extremists "American ISIS"

On his Facebook page tonight, Michael Moore addresses a Salon story about an uncomfortable confrontation with Clint Eastwood at a 2005 film awards ceremony.


In his post, the director of “Fahrenheit 911″ and “Bowling for Columbine” confirmed the story about Eastwood telling the crowd that he would kill Moore if he ever came to his house with a camera for an interview, and writes about how anxious the threat made him.

Moore writes:

The crowd laughed nervously. As for me, having just experienced a half-dozen assaults in the previous year from crazies upset at ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ and my anti-war Oscar speech, plus the attempt by a right wing extremist to blow up my house (he was caught in time and went to prison), I was a bit stunned to hear Eastwood, out of the blue, make such a violent statement. But I instantly decided he was just trying to be funny, so I laughed the same nervous laugh everyone else did. Clint, though, didn’t seem to like all that laughter.

“I mean it,” he barked, and the audience grew more quiet. “I’ll shoot you.”

There was a smattering of approving applause, but most just turned around to see what my reaction was. I tried to keep that fake smile on my face so as to appear as if he hadn’t “gotten” to me. But he had. I then mumbled to those sitting at my table. “I think Dirty Harry just said, “Make my day, punk.”

Moore praises many of Eastwood’s films, and calls “Unforgiven” his favorite Western of all time. But then he adds that, “something started to go haywire with Clint in the last decade.” The Salon article, he notes, suggests that started with the verbal attack that night. That was followed, Moore notes, by “the (IMHO) awful (and weirdly racist) “Gran Torino” where he got to cast himself as a bigoted retired autoworker in Detroit. Two years later he was on the stage at the Republican National Convention carrying on a berating and confused conversation with an invisible Obama in an empty chair.”



http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/30/snipers-are-saviors-chris-kyles-brother-fires-back-michael-moore

'Snipers Are Saviors': Chris Kyle's Brother Fires Back at Michael Moore
January 30, 2015

The brother of “American Sniper” Chris Kyle was on “Hannity” tonight, where he responded to Michael Moore’s remark that snipers are cowards.

“Just because somebody was killed by a sniper, it doesn’t make snipers cowards. Snipers are – they’re saviors,” Jeff Kyle said, adding that those who have served overseas have been “damn proud” to have snipers on watch.

“For them to say that they’re cowards, that would be like PETA calling Michael Moore a murderer for all the cheeseburgers he’s eaten,” Kyle said.

Kyle told Sean Hannity that the success of “American Sniper” has been overwhelming.

“It puts the message out. It’s not a war story, it’s not a shoot ‘em up, blow ‘em up movie. It’s a story about a soldier in combat, whether it’s on the battlefield or off, he’s still in combat.”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-rude-comcast-customer-renamings-surface/

More rude Comcast customer renamings surface
By DAVID HANCOCK CBS NEWS
January 30, 2015

Christopher Elliott, the journalist who broke the story about the Comcast-"A**hole Brown" customer service debacle, writes that more customers are coming forth with similar stories.

On his blog Elliott.org Wednesday, Elliot shared the story of Ricardo and Lisa Brown, a Spokane, Washington couple whose billing name waschanged from "Ricardo Brown" to "A**hole Brown" by a Comcast customer service rep.

It's the kind of publicity the company doesn't need, and it sparked intervention from the highest levels. Charlie Herrin, the company's senior vice president of customer experience, spoke directly to Lisa Brown, apologizing and telling her the employee who made the name change had been fired.

The dust was starting to settle when Elliott was contacted by other Comcast customers including:

A woman whose billing name was change to "Whore Julia"
Another woman whose online greeting was changed to "Hello, dummy"
A family whose name changed to something close to the f-word

Comcast's Herrin said in a post that the company is investigating the incidentsand "We're also looking at a number of technical solutions that would prevent it from happening moving forward."

Tom Karinshak, Comcast's senior vice president of customer service, told Elliott the company is taking steps to prevent unauthorized name changes from taking place in the future.

"We're retraining our teams on the importance of making name changes properly," he told Elliott. "We're looking for automated solutions to prevent this from happening in the future."

Comcast says it will follow up with each customer, offer an apology and "do whatever it takes to make things right," said  Karinshak.

Elliott, a consumer advocacy writer who writes for USA Today, The Washington Post and other publications, said he's been amazed by the crudeness.

"With all this salty language flying, I feel like I should wash my keyboard with hot water and soap," he said. "If they talk about their customers like this publicly, I can only image what they say about them privately."




“Tom Karinshak, Comcast's senior vice president of customer service, told Elliott the company is taking steps to prevent unauthorized name changes from taking place in the future. "We're retraining our teams on the importance of making name changes properly," he told Elliott. "We're looking for automated solutions to prevent this from happening in the future." These startling cases of abuse by COMCAST workers are too far over the line of simple logic and good sense, so I feel sure they don't reflect any kind of company policy. They do, however, clearly show that COMCAST is not supervising its workers nearly well enough. Karinshak stated that they are “looking for automated solutions,” so it looks as if their supervisory staff are incapable of policing their workers any other way.

The computer culture has really gotten out of hand. It spies on people in their homes via little cameras installed in many modern computers. Shocking! How is that legal? One news article on that subject advised people to take a piece of thick tape and place it over the point where the camera looks out. Of course, you have to find it first. Given all this IT knowledge at COMCAST, however, they should turn some similar spy mechanisms inward on their workers and data track every keystroke these customer service reps make.

I know their job is frustrating, but that's no excuse. A friend of mine makes followup calls for a local police and firefighter donation line. She said that one of their workers made a similar kind of name change on the information of a citizen who hadn't paid, and he was fired instantly. Even if people call them names and shout, they aren't allowed to do that. They can be tracked and disciplined.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-fed-up-with-measles-outbreak-takes-controversial-stance/

Doctor fed up with measles outbreak takes controversial stance
By CARTER EVANS CBS NEWS
January 30, 2015

LOS ANGELES -- Pediatrician Charles Goodman has a message for parents: Vaccinate your children against the measles or find another doctor.

"I can't protect every kid in the United States, but I can protect the ones I care for," said Dr. Goodman. "It's a very hard line to take, but at some point I had to draw the line in the sand and say you know what, I got to protect my kids, that's my job as a pediatrician."

The measles virus can linger in the air for up to two hours and babies under a year old are especially at risk because they're too young to receive the vaccine.

"Those babies could die," said Dr. Goodman. "I have to weigh the risk of a kid in my office getting measles and potentially dying versus the rights of those parents to not immunize when I thought most of them were making that choice based on bad information."

Dr. Goodman says he's tried for years to educate parents about the safety of vaccines but says he's rarely able to convince them. The parents aren't valuing his medical expertise and are instead getting unscientific information from the internet, said Dr. Goodman.

"That's why I took the stance, believe your doctor, listen to your doctor, not the Internet, or go somewhere else," Dr. Goodman said.

Some parents we spoke with, who oppose vaccines, say they feel bullied by doctors who threaten to drop un-immunized patients. But Dr. Goodman says his new policy is already having an effect - large parents are calling his office to make an appointment for vaccinations.



http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements

History of Anti-vaccination Movements
December 18, 2014

Health and medical scholars have described vaccination as one of the top ten achievements of public health in the 20th century.[1] Yet, opposition to vaccination has existed as long as vaccination itself[2] (indeed, the pre-vaccination practice of variolation came under criticism as well: see this timeline entry for details). Critics of vaccination have taken a variety of positions, including opposition to the smallpox vaccine in England and the United States in the mid to late 1800s, and the resulting anti-vaccination leagues; as well as more recent vaccination controversies such as those surrounding the safety and efficacy of the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) immunization, the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the use of a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal.

Smallpox and the Anti-vaccination Leagues in England

Widespread smallpox vaccination began in the early 1800s, following Edward Jenner’s cowpox experiments, in which he showed that he could protect a child from smallpox if he infected him or her with lymph from a cowpox blister. Jenner’s ideas were novel for his time, however, and they were met with immediate public criticism. The rationale for this criticism varied, and included sanitary, religious, scientific, and political objections.

For some parents, the smallpox vaccination itself induced fear and protest. It included scoring the flesh on a child’s arm, and inserting lymph from the blister of a person who had been vaccinated about a week earlier. Some objectors, including the local clergy, believed that the vaccine was “unchristian” because it came from an animal.[3] For other anti-vaccinators, their discontent with the smallpox vaccine reflected their general distrust in medicine and in Jenner’s ideas about disease spread. Suspicious of the vaccine’s efficacy, some skeptics alleged that smallpox resulted from decaying matter in the atmosphere.[4] Lastly, many people objected to vaccination because they believed it violated their personal liberty, a tension that worsened as the government developed mandatory vaccine policies. [3]

The Vaccination Act of 1853 ordered mandatory vaccination for infants up to 3 months old, and the Act of 1867 extended this age requirement to 14 years, adding penalties for vaccine refusal. The laws were met with immediate resistance from citizens who demanded the right to control their bodies and those of their children.[3] The Anti Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed in response to the mandatory laws, and numerous anti-vaccination journals sprang up.[2]   

The town of Leicester was a particular hotbed of anti vaccine activity and the site of many anti-vaccine rallies. The local paper described the details of a rally: “An escort was formed, preceded by a banner, to escort a young mother and two men, all of whom had resolved to give themselves up to the police and undergo imprisonment in preference to having their children vaccinated…The three were attended by a numerous crowd…three hearty cheers were given for them, which were renewed with increased vigor as they entered the doors of the police cells.”[5] The Leicester Demonstration March of 1885 was one of the most notorious anti-vaccination demonstrations. There, 80,000-100,000 anti-vaccinators led an elaborate march, complete with banners, a child’s coffin, and an effigy of Jenner.[3]

Such demonstrations and general vaccine opposition lead to the development of a commission designed to study vaccination. In 1896 the commission ruled that vaccination protected against smallpox, but suggested removing penalties for failure to vaccinate. The Vaccination Act of 1898 removed penalties and included a “conscientious objector” clause, so that parents who did not believe in vaccination’s safety or efficacy could obtain an exemption certificate.[2]
Smallpox and the Anti-vaccination Leagues in the United States

Toward the end of the 19th century, smallpox outbreaks in the United States led to vaccine campaigns and related anti-vaccine activity. The Anti Vaccination Society of America was founded in 1879, following a visit to America by leading British anti-vaccinationist William Tebb. Two other leagues, the New England Anti Compulsory Vaccination League (1882) and the Anti-vaccination League of New York City (1885) followed. The American anti-vaccinationists waged court battles to repeal vaccination laws in several states including California, Illinois, and Wisconsin.[2]

In 1902, following a smallpox outbreak, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, mandated all city residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. City resident Henning Jacobson refused vaccination on the grounds that the law violated his right to care for his own body how he knew best. In turn, the city filed criminal charges against him. After losing his court battle locally, Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1905 the Court found in the state’s favor, ruling that the state could enact compulsory laws to protect the public in the event of a communicable disease. This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the power of states in public health law. [6],[7]

The Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTP) Vaccine Controversy
Anti-vaccination positions and vaccination controversies are not limited to the past. In the mid 1970s, an international controversy over the safety of the DTP immunization erupted in Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America. In the United Kingdom (UK), opposition resulted in response to a report from the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in London, alleging that 36 children suffered neurological conditions following DTP immunization.[8] Television documentaries and newspaper reports drew public attention to the controversy. An advocacy group, The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children (APVDC), also piqued public interest in the potential risks and consequences of DTP.

In response to decreased vaccination rates and three major epidemics of whooping cough (pertussis), the Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), an independent expert advisory committee in the UK, confirmed the safety of the immunization. Nonetheless, public confusion continued, in part because of diverse opinions within the medical profession. For example, surveys of medical providers in the UK in the late 1970s found that they were reluctant to recommend the immunization to all patients.[9] Additionally, an outspoken physician and vaccine opponent, Gordon Stewart, published a series of case reports linking neurological disorders to DTP, sparking additional debate. In response, the JCVI launched the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES). The study identified every child between 2 and 36 months hospitalized in the UK for neurological illness, and assessed whether or not the immunization was associated with increased risk. NCES results indicated that the risk was very low, and this data lent support to a national pro-immunization campaign.[10] Members of the APVDC continued to argue in court for recognition and compensation, but were denied both due to the lack of evidence linking the DTP immunization with harm.

The U.S. controversy began with media attention on the alleged risks of DTP. A 1982 documentary, DPT: Vaccination Roulette, described alleged adverse reactions to the immunization and minimized the benefits.[11] Similarly, a 1991 book titled A Shot in the Dark outlined potential risks.[12] As in the UK, concerned and angry parents formed victim advocacy groups, but the counter response from medical organizations, like the Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was stronger in the United States.[9] Although the media storm instigated several lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, increased vaccine prices, and caused some companies to stop making DTP,[13] the overall controversy affected immunization rates less than in the UK.  

The Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine Controversy

Nearly 25 years after the DTP controversy, England was again the site of anti-vaccination activity, this time regarding the MMR vaccine.

In 1998, British doctor Andrew Wakefield recommended further investigation of a possible relationship between bowel disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine.[14] A few years later, Wakefield alleged the vaccine was not properly tested before being put into use.[15] The media seized these stories, igniting public fear and confusion over the safety of the vaccine.[16] The Lancet, the journal that originally published Wakefield’s work, stated in 2004 that it should not have published the paper.[17] The General Medical Council, an independent regulator for doctors in the UK, found that Wakefield had a “fatal conflict of interest.” He had been paid by a law board to find out if there was evidence to support a litigation case by parents who believed that the vaccine had harmed their children. In 2010, the Lancet formally retracted the paper after the British General Medical Council ruled against Wakefield in several areas. Wakefield was struck from the medical register in Great Britain and may no longer practice medicine there. In January 2011, the BMJ published a series of reports by journalist Brian Deer outlining evidence that Wakefield had committed scientific fraud by falsifying data and also that Wakefield hoped to financially profit from his investigations in several ways.[18]

A large number of research studies have been conducted to assess the safety of the MMR vaccine, and none of them has found a link between the vaccine and autism.[19]

“Green Our Vaccines”

Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound used as a preservative in vaccines,[20] has also been the center of a vaccination and autism controversy.  Although there is no clear scientific evidence that small amounts of thimerosal in vaccines cause harm, in July 1999, leading U.S. public health and medical organizations and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated from vaccines as a precautionary measure.[20] In 2001, The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee issued a report concluding that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove claims that thimerosal in childhood vaccines causes autism, attention deficit hypersensitivity disorder, or speech or language delay.[21] A more recent report by the committee “favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.”[22]Even with this finding, some researchers continue to study the possible links between thimerosal and autism.[23] Today, thimerosal is no longer used in most childhood vaccines, though some forms of influenza vaccine available in multi-dose vials may contain the preservative.[24]

Despite scientific evidence, concerns over thimerosal have led to a public “Green Our Vaccines” campaign, a movement to remove “toxins” from vaccines, for fear that these substances lead to autism. Celebrity Jenny McCarthy, her advocacy group Generation Rescue, and the organization Talk about Curing Autism (TACA) have spearheaded these efforts.[25]

In Conclusion

Although the time periods have changed, the emotions and deep-rooted beliefs—whether philosophical, political, or spiritual—that underlie vaccine opposition have remained relatively consistent since Edward Jenner introduced vaccination.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/01/29/382413365/girls-get-good-grades-but-still-need-help-as-for-boys-sos

Girls Get Good Grades But Still Need Help. As For Boys ... SOS!
Linda Poon
January 29, 2015

Photograph – Girl students in Bangkok tend to do better than boys. That's the finding of a new study.

A new study shows that when it comes to the classroom, girls rule.

They outperform boys in math, science and reading in 70 percent of the 70-plus countries and regions surveyed by the Organization for Economic Development Cooperation and Development. Girls do better even in countries that rank low on U.N.'s gender equality index and that tend to discriminate against women politically, economically and socially — like Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

"What we find is that throughout the world boys are lagging in overall achievement," says psychologist David Geary at University of Missouri-Columbia, who coauthored the study. He adds that while there are several efforts to promote education for girls in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, boys have largely been overlooked.

To draw their conclusions, Geary and fellow researcher Gijsbert Stoet at University of Glasgow sifted through the scores of 1.5 million 15-year-olds who took the Program for International Assessmentbetween 2000 and 2009. The OECD gives the test every three years to measure the competency of 15-year-olds in those school subjects. That's the age when kids in many countries are completing their mandatory schooling, says Geary.

For the most part, boys do worse than girls, and the gap widens among the lowest performing students. Boys are on par with girls only in the top 20 percent of students in wealthy and developed countries. Boys tend to do better than girls in only three countries and regions: Colombia, Costa Rica and the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. But Geary says that's too small a sample to come up with definitive conclusions about why these boys are A students.

The results were published last week in the journal Intelligence.

Why do boys fall behind? There could be many reasons, Geary says, like the structure of a school day. "It's tough for all kids to sit down and pay attention for six, seven hours but it's generally harder for boys," he says. "Boys are a little bit more active behaviorally and so sitting still requires a little more effort." Integrating recess or physical education into the school day might help them pay better attention in class. That's something that isn't emphasized in many schools in low-income countries.

And boys don't always stick with school. "In middle-income countries like Brazil, a lot of boys drop out at middle school level to go into the work force," says Changu Mannathoko, senior education adviser at UNICEF. "With boys, they get much more prestige when they are out working [or] part of a gang than being a student." Whereas girls see learning as an opportunity to get jobs and leave an oppressive environment, she adds, so they often take school more seriously.

So how do you help boys do better?

One simple intervention, says Mannathoko, is to encourage more men to become teachers in primary school so boys can have a role model early on.

A more enterprising solution is bringing school to the boys. In Lesotho, boys (and also girls) often can't get to school because they're up in the mountains herding livestock or working in mines. "The interventions weren't just focused on formal education but also on mobile schools." The idea is to bring the classroom to the children where they are working. Mannathoko acknowledges that Lesotho still grapples with providing education for kids, but she says the campaign is a good first step.

Meanwhile, there are concerns about the education of girls, despite the study's encouraging results. One of the problems of the study, Mannathoko says, is that it includes only a handful low-income countries. She notes that in many of the poorest nations, gender discrimination keeps millions of girls from getting an education in the first place. Many of them are at risk of being attacked while going to school or have to drop out and take care of the house.

So in the end, it's not really a matter of who needs more help, boys or girls.

"Let's not generalize," says Mannathoko. "Let's take advantage of our research to improve the learning outcomes to ensure that both girls and boys perform well."



Compulsory education
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compulsory education refers to a period of education that is required of persons, imposed by law. In some countries the education needs to take place at a registered school. Other countries allow the education to happen outside of school, for example via homeschooling.

United States[edit]

Compulsory school attendance based on the Prussian model gradually spread to other countries. It was quickly adopted by the governments in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, Estonia and Latvia but was rejected in the Russian Empire itself.[10][11] France and the UK did not, until the 1880s, introduce compulsory education, France due to conflicts between a radical secular state and the catholic church, the UK due to the upper class defending its educational privileges and turfs.[12] In the US, the American Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the first state to pass a compulsory education law which occurred in 1852. These laws continued to spread to other states until finally, in 1918, Mississippi was the last state to enact a compulsory attendance law.

Compulsory education was not part of early American society;[citation needed] which relied instead on church-run private schools that mostly charged fees for tuition.[citation needed] The spread of compulsory attendance in the Massachusetts tradition throughout America, especially for Native Americans, has been credited to General Richard Henry Pratt.[15]Pratt used techniques developed on Native Americans in a prisoner of war camp in Fort Marion, Augustine, Florida, to force demographic minorities across America into government schools.[15] His prototype was the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania.

Europe[edit]

One of the last areas in Europe to adopt a compulsory system was England and Wales, where the Elementary Education Act of 1870 paved the way by establishing school boards to set up schools in any places that did not have adequate provision. Attendance was made compulsory until age 10 in 1880. The Education Act of 1996 made it an obligation on parents to require children to have a full-time education from the age of five to the age of sixteen. However, attendance at school itself is not compulsory; Section 7 of the Act allows for "education otherwise" than at a school i.e. home education.

Variation in countries[edit]

Some kind of education is compulsory to all people in most countries, but different localities vary in how many years or grades of education they require and in whether it needs to be in a school or can be provided at home. Due to population growth and the proliferation of compulsory education, UNESCO calculated in 2006 that over the subsequent 30 years more people would receive formal education than in all prior human history.[16] It is possible in many countries for parents to provide education for children by homeschooling, although this is often monitored for adherence to national standards.




NPR – “For the most part, boys do worse than girls, and the gap widens among the lowest performing students. Boys are on par with girls only in the top 20 percent of students in wealthy and developed countries. Boys tend to do better than girls in only three countries and regions: Colombia, Costa Rica and the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. But Geary says that's too small a sample to come up with definitive conclusions about why these boys are A students.... "It's tough for all kids to sit down and pay attention for six, seven hours but it's generally harder for boys," he says. "Boys are a little bit more active behaviorally and so sitting still requires a little more effort." Integrating recess or physical education into the school day might help them pay better attention in class. That's something that isn't emphasized in many schools in low-income countries.... "With boys, they get much more prestige when they are out working [or] part of a gang than being a student." Whereas girls see learning as an opportunity to get jobs and leave an oppressive environment, she adds, so they often take school more seriously. So how do you help boys do better? One simple intervention, says Mannathoko, is to encourage more men to become teachers in primary school so boys can have a role model early on. A more enterprising solution is bringing school to the boys. In Lesotho, boys (and also girls) often can't get to school because they're up in the mountains herding livestock or working in mines. "The interventions weren't just focused on formal education but also on mobile schools."... One of the problems of the study, Mannathoko says, is that it includes only a handful low-income countries. She notes that in many of the poorest nations, gender discrimination keeps millions of girls from getting an education in the first place. Many of them are at risk of being attacked while going to school or have to drop out and take care of the house.”

"Let's not generalize," says Mannathoko. "Let's take advantage of our research to improve the learning outcomes to ensure that both girls and boys perform well." The school system in the US is built around the kids coming to school 9 months only, with a fairly long summer vacation. The beginning of that was the fact that many American families made their money by farming and the kids, both boys and girls, were needed for the harvest.

In a number of the countries mentioned in this article the kids, both boys and girls, are needed to work in the mines or in the home, just as in the US 50 years ago. It is interesting indeed that only in the top 20% of nations, ranked apparently by wealth, do the boys perform as well as the girls. And in only three regions worldwide do the boys outperform the girls – Colombia, Costa Rica and the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Could such a thing be brain-based and inherited? Or are the boys in those three places less “macho,” and therefore more inclined to an “effeminate” activity like studying? Or maybe intellectual pursuits are more generally followed in the population as a whole in those places. Are the people there perhaps more wealthy and therefore more inclined to buy books, etc.? A worse answer might be that in those three countries the girls are culturally downtrodden compared to boys. In parts of Islamic areas girls are not allowed to get an education, apparently for the same reason that during and before the Civil War the black slaves were not allowed to learn to read.

It interested me that compulsory public education was required in Scotland in the 1600's, whereas in England and Wales it wasn't until 1870 that a law mandating public schools came about. Are the Scots more intellectually inclined than “the Brits?” Or is there a difference in their social class system? Jane Austen and her peers were certainly literate – of course her father was a manufacturer of woolen cloth and had gained landed status. The average small farmer may not have been literate.

This NPR article just makes me want more information. I have to wonder if the truly average boy is actually less intelligent in non-mechanical ways than the average girl? Perhaps that is part of the reason why more boys than girls get involved in gangs and criminal activity if left on their own devices. Why, oh why, is it that in much of the world women are then prohibited from pursuing a profession? Is it that the rule of mailed fist is built into the human personality? Women in the South when I was young and before were traditionally considered “unfeminine” if they were scholarly. Even Jane Austen referred to her lead character role Elizabeth's sister as a “blue stocking,” and treated her scornfully. This article really makes me pretty angry. To this day women in the US are discouraged from going into law, engineering, physics and math, or even biology. A recent article dealt with the subject of discrimination against women in computer programming also. I can only encourage all young women to study hard and pursue higher goals no matter what their father, mother, boyfriend or big brother has to say about it.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/23/379192151/leaky-blood-vessels-in-the-brain-may-lead-to-alzheimers

Leaky Blood Vessels In The Brain May Lead To Alzheimer's
Jon Hamilton
JANUARY 23, 2015

Researchers appear to have found a new risk factor for Alzheimer's disease: leaky blood vessels.

An MRI study of found those experiencing mild problems with thinking and memory had much leakier blood vessels in the hippocampus. "This is exactly the area of the brain that is involved with learning and memory," says Berislav Zlokovic, the study's senior author and director of the Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute at the University of Southern California.

The study, published in Neuron, also found that blood vessels in the hippocampus tend to become leakier in all people as they age. But the process is accelerated in those likely to develop Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia.

The finding suggests that it may be possible to identify people at risk for Alzheimer's by looking at their blood vessels, says Rod Corriveau , a program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which helped fund the research. The results also suggests that a drug to help the body seal up leaky blood vessels could delay or prevent Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia.

"This study gives patients and families hope for the future, hope that detecting leaky blood vessels early will provide the opportunity to stop dementia before it starts," Corriveau says.

The new research grew out of earlier studies of people who died with Alzheimer's disease. "We were looking at brains from autopsies and it (became) quite apparent that there is a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier," Zlokovic says.

The blood-brain barrier is a special layer of cells that normally prevents bacteria and toxins that circulate in the bloodstream from mixing with the fluid that surrounds brain cells. When it breaks down, toxins leak into the fluid that surrounds brain cells and eventually damage or kill the cells.

The autopsy research couldn't show whether the breakdown occurred before or after Alzheimer's appeared. So Zlokovic and his team used a special type of MRI to study the living brains of more than 60 people. The group included both healthy individuals and people with mild cognitive impairment, which can be an early sign of Alzheimer's.

The researchers paid special attention to the hippocampus because it is one of the first brain areas affected by Alzheimer's. And they found that in some regions of the hippocampus, the permeability of the blood-brain barrier was more than 50 percent higher in people with mild cognitive impairment.

The finding could help explain why people with atherosclerosis and other problems with their blood vessels are more likely to develop Alzheimer's, says Corriveaux. "There's every reason to think that a lot of Alzheimer's disease does involve vascular damage," he says.

The study also adds to the evidence that amyloid plaques and the tangles known as tau aren't the only factors that lead to Alzheimer's. There are probably several different paths to dementia, Corriveau says, including one that involves leaky blood vessels.

One important question now is whether it's possible to repair damage to the blood brain barrier. That may be possible using cells known as pericytes, which help prevent blood vessels in the brain from leaking.




“An MRI study of found those experiencing mild problems with thinking and memory had much leakier blood vessels in the hippocampus. "This is exactly the area of the brain that is involved with learning and memory," says Berislav Zlokovic, the study's senior author and director of the Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute at the University of Southern California. The study, published in Neuron, also found that blood vessels in the hippocampus tend to become leakier in all people as they age. But the process is accelerated in those likely to develop Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia.... The results also suggests that a drug to help the body seal up leaky blood vessels could delay or prevent Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. "This study gives patients and families hope for the future, hope that detecting leaky blood vessels early will provide the opportunity to stop dementia before it starts," Corriveau says. The new research grew out of earlier studies of people who died with Alzheimer's disease. "We were looking at brains from autopsies and it (became) quite apparent that there is a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier," Zlokovic says. The blood-brain barrier is a special layer of cells that normally prevents bacteria and toxins that circulate in the bloodstream from mixing with the fluid that surrounds brain cells. When it breaks down, toxins leak into the fluid that surrounds brain cells and eventually damage or kill the cells.... The researchers paid special attention to the hippocampus because it is one of the first brain areas affected by Alzheimer's. And they found that in some regions of the hippocampus, the permeability of the blood-brain barrier was more than 50 percent higher in people with mild cognitive impairment. The finding could help explain why people with atherosclerosis and other problems with their blood vessels are more likely to develop Alzheimer's, says Corriveaux. "There's every reason to think that a lot of Alzheimer's disease does involve vascular damage," he says. The study also adds to the evidence that amyloid plaques and the tangles known as tau aren't the only factors that lead to Alzheimer's. There are probably several different paths to dementia, Corriveau says, including one that involves leaky blood vessels.... That may be possible using cells known as pericytes, which help prevent blood vessels in the brain from leaking.”

This article makes me somewhat uncomfortable because my niece the nurse said that some purplish spots that have appeared a few times on my hands are due to “leaky blood vessels.” I've also experienced a little forgetfulness, especially in being able to say the name of some movie actor or other person who is not family or friend. After some five minutes or so the word will come to “the tip of my tongue” and I'll be able to say it. I'm thinking of consulting a doctor and maybe starting on a memory drug if he thinks I need one. Meanwhile I'm going to keep writing this blog, because articles I've seen usually agree that maintaining brain activity helps stave off the dreaded “dementia.”



Pericyte
Wikipedia

“Pericytes are contractile cells that wrap around the endothelial cells of capillaries and venules throughout the body.[1] Also known as Rouget cells or mural cells, pericytes are embedded in basement membranewhere they communicate with endothelial cells of the body's smallest blood vessels by means of both direct physical contact and paracrine signaling.[2] …. Pericytes regulate capillary blood flow, the clearance and phagocytosis of cellular debris, and the permeability of the blood–brain barrier. Pericytes stabilize and monitor the maturation of endothelial cells by means of direct communication between the cell membrane as well as through paracrine signaling.[5] A deficiency of pericytes in the central nervous system can cause the blood–brain barrier to break down.[3] …. In the central nervous system, pericytes wrap around the endothelial cells that line the inside of the capillary. These two types of cells can be easily distinguished from one another based on the presence of the prominent roundnucleus of the pericyte compared to the flat elongated nucleus of the endothelial cells.[4] Pericytes also project finger-like extensions that wrap around the capillary wall, allowing the cells to regulate capillary blood flow.”[3]





http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/28/382168407/florida-health-officials-hope-to-test-gmo-mosquitoes-this-spring

Florida Health Officials Hope To Test GMO Mosquitoes This Spring
Greg Allen
JANUARY 28, 2015

Photograph – A couple of male, genetically modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes take flight.

The FDA is considering whether to approve the experimental use of genetically modified mosquitoes in the Florida Keys to help stop the spread of dengue fever and other diseases. Mosquito control officials in the region say they hope to get approval to begin releasing the insects in the Keys as soon as this spring.

There are few places in the United States where mosquito control is as critical as the Florida Keys. In this southernmost county of the continental U.S., mosquitoes are a year-round public health problem and controlling them is a top priority.

Michael Doyle, an entomologist who oversees the Mosquito Control District in the Keys, is worried about one species in particular: Aedes aegypti.

"They love people," Doyle says. He puts his hand near a fine-meshed cage full of the insects, in one of the district labs, to demonstrate his point. The mosquitoes immediately respond, clustering at Doyle's side of the cage. They've clearly noticed him, and they're interested.

"I'm not going to touch them," he says, "because these are wild types and they could be carrying something. But if you put your hand up, they'll fly over and land on the screen to try to bite you through the screen."

These are the mosquitoes that carry dengue fever andchikungunya, another tropical disease that's swept through the Caribbean and is now showing up in Florida.

After years of spraying, local health officials say, A. aegyptimosquitoes in the Keys have developed a resistance to most chemical pesticides. Now, the Mosquito Control District wants to become the first in the U.S. to try something new: genetically modified mosquitoes. The strain of insects was developed more than a decade ago by a British company, Oxitec.

Experiments already conducted in Malaysia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands have found that releasing bioengineered male mosquitoes can reduce the A. Aegypti population by 90 percent. For the past five years, officials in the Keys have been working with Oxitec to get approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for similar experimental trials in Florida.

Derric Nimmo, Oxitec's head of mosquito research, says only male A. aegypti are released in these experiments. "It mates with the females in the wild," he explains, "and passes on that gene to all the offspring. The female goes off and lays her eggs. The eggs hatch. But then they die before reaching adulthood."

The district says surveys it has commissioned of area residents suggest that 60 percent are OK with the trials, and 10 to 20 percent are opposed. In public meetings, though, opposition to the bioengineered mosquitoes has been strong. Some residents question whether dengue is enough of a problem in the Keys to warrant such an experiment.

"It makes no sense to me," Deb Curley, a resident of Cudjoe Key, said at a recent public meeting. "We don't want to be guinea pigs."

In 2009 and 2010, Key West was hit with an outbreak of dengue fever, the first in 75 years. There haven't been any cases since. But Doyle compares the situation to a smoldering fire. "We've got 2.5 to 3 million people that visit the Keys every year," he says. "We're very popular. So the likelihood of it arriving at any given time is good."

Other residents say they're concerned by how a bioengineered mosquito may affect them and the environment. Patty Crimmins, a resident of Key West, says her concerns go beyond mosquitoes. "We're not particularly thrilled with genetically modified anything," she says.

Oxitec's Nimmo says that since A. Aegypti mosquitoes are nonnative, removing them would actually be an environmental plus. He says the bioengineered mosquitoes don't live long after they're released. "And then," he says, "the offspring will die. We've shown that after trials where we stop releasing, [this strain of mosquito] doesn't last very long in the environment. So, we've got a very self-limiting, safe, species-specific technology."




“Michael Doyle, an entomologist who oversees the Mosquito Control District in the Keys, is worried about one species in particular: Aedes aegypti. "They love people," Doyle says. He puts his hand near a fine-meshed cage full of the insects, in one of the district labs, to demonstrate his point. The mosquitoes immediately respond, clustering at Doyle's side of the cage. They've clearly noticed him, and they're interested..... These are the mosquitoes that carry dengue fever and chikungunya, another tropical disease that's swept through the Caribbean and is now showing up in Florida. After years of spraying, local health officials say, A. aegyptimosquitoes in the Keys have developed a resistance to most chemical pesticides. ... Experiments already conducted in Malaysia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands have found that releasing bioengineered male mosquitoes can reduce the A. Aegypti population by 90 percent. For the past five years, officials in the Keys have been working with Oxitec to get approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for similar experimental trials in Florida. Derric Nimmo, Oxitec's head of mosquito research, says only male A. aegypti are released in these experiments. "It mates with the females in the wild," he explains, "and passes on that gene to all the offspring. The female goes off and lays her eggs. The eggs hatch. But then they die before reaching adulthood." … In 2009 and 2010, Key West was hit with an outbreak of dengue fever, the first in 75 years. There haven't been any cases since. But Doyle compares the situation to a smoldering fire. "We've got 2.5 to 3 million people that visit the Keys every year," he says. "We're very popular. So the likelihood of it arriving at any given time is good."

This is a great use of genetic engineering, as Florida is full of mosquitoes. Some people are clearly afraid of the very word “bioengineering,” but to me it carries no threat at all at least in this instance, especially as compared to some of the pesticides that are being used, which are toxic to people as well as bugs. The famous case of the bluebirds almost becoming extinct due to the use of DDT is another example. The toxin didn't directly kill the birds, but it caused their egg shells to become too soft, and therefore the fetuses died. Besides, some of those poisons aren't killing the mosquitoes anymore because the little monsters have developed immunity to them. If you don't believe they are monsters, take a look at a drawing I found in an encyclopedia of their mouth parts. It looks like a Swiss Army Knife. Mosquito bites sting and itch, even if they don't carry yellow fever anymore. They have spread the bird virus West Nile in this state for several years now, and if someone with malaria comes to live here they could easily spread that, too. That's the problem with living in such a balmy, mild climate – the winters simply aren't cold enough here to kill them.

Friday, January 30, 2015


It was an especially good news day today, so I have included ten or so articles rather than six or seven. I hope you won't find this too long.


News Clips For The Day


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382440318/british-fighters-escort-russian-bombers-near-u-k-airspace

British Fighters 'Escort' Russian Bombers Near U.K. Airspace
Scott Neuman
January 29, 2015

The British government has summoned Russia's ambassador to the United Kingdom, asking him to explain why a pair of nuclear-capable Russian long-range "Bear" bombers flew alarmingly close to U.K. Airspace.

In a situation reminiscent of the Cold War, British Typhoon fighters were scrambled to intercept the TU-95s on Wednesday. Ultimately, the bombers did not enter U.K. airspace, but a spokesman for the Foreign Office in London said the incident was part of "an increasing pattern of out-of-area operations by Russian aircraft," Sky News says.
According to the BBC:

"The planes were 'escorted' by RAF jets 'throughout the time they were in the UK area of interest', officials added.

"Russia's ambassador has been summoned to 'account for the incident.' "

Reuters quotes an unnamed British government source as saying that:

"[The] incident ... was viewed as 'a significant escalation' and marked a change in strategy since Russian aircraft had previously largely confined themselves to flying close to Scotland.

" 'It was very dangerous. Civil aircraft flying to the UK had to be rerouted,' the source was quoted by Reuters as saying. 'The Russians were flying with their transponders turned off so could only be seen on military radar. They haven't flown this far south before.' "




" 'It was very dangerous. Civil aircraft flying to the UK had to be rerouted,' the source was quoted by Reuters as saying. 'The Russians were flying with their transponders turned off so could only be seen on military radar. They haven't flown this far south before.' " Russian adventurism is in the news again, as it has been several times in the past three months or so. This flight is doubly dangerous because it was in the flight paths of civilian planes and they had their transponder turned off, making them almost indetectable. They're acting like bad boys, undoubtedly under the authority of Putin himself. He's a very irresponsible national leader. He's beginning to remind me of Kim Jong-un.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/egypt-protest-against-police-killing-shaimaa-el-sabbagh-democracy-activist/

Egypt activist's killing sparks outrage in Cairo
By ALEX ORTIZ CBS NEWS
January 30, 2015

Photograph – Socialist Popular Alliance Party (SPAP) activist Shaimaa al-Sabbagh is held up after she was shot during a protest in Cairo, Jan. 24, 2015.

CAIRO -- Egyptian women gathered in the heart of downtown Cairo Thursday to protest the killing of one of their own.

Dramatic pictures show the moment Egyptian protester Shaimaa El-Sabbagh was shot dead last weekend. She and a small group of anti-government activists had gathered to mark the anniversary of Egypt's revolution; the overthrow of long-time strongman Hosni Mubarak in 2011.

But police forcefully broke up the demonstration, and pictures and video of El-Sabbagh's death went viral, provoking an uproar. Activists claim the photographic evidence clearly shows El-Sabbagh was shot at close range by a police shotgun round. She died after birdshot penetrated her heart and lungs.

"The images that came out after Shaimaa's death were so moving and so outrageous that they created a certain moment, online and amongst activists, and even beyond activists," protester Yasmin El-Rifae told CBS News on Thursday.

That's what brought her and hundreds of others back out to the streets Thursday.

"You hit a certain limit, maybe, and maybe that limit is having someone shot in broad daylight quite near to where you live or where you hang out," said El-Rifae.

The protesters gathered Thursday in the exact spot where El-Sabbagh was shot dead, in memorial of her. They held flowers and images of their former compatriot, and chanted against the police.

The Egyptian authorities have promised a speedy investigation into El-Sabbagh's death.

But when CBS News asked police general Gamal Mukhtar how he could explain the images of her violent killing, he suggested they had been fabricated.

"The pictures aren't evidence of anything at all," he said.

It's that kind of talk that makes the women who took to the streets on Thursday doubt they'll see any real justice for their fallen colleague.




“The Egyptian authorities have promised a speedy investigation into El-Sabbagh's death. But when CBS News asked police general Gamal Mukhtar how he could explain the images of her violent killing, he suggested they had been fabricated. "The pictures aren't evidence of anything at all," he said. It's that kind of talk that makes the women who took to the streets on Thursday doubt they'll see any real justice for their fallen colleague.”

The title “police general” says a lot. They don't have a truly civilian police force, and political dissidents are being killed. Egypt is one of our important allies in the Middle East, but they aren't really a democracy. That is often the case around the world. The dictators maintain a tight control over their population, so groups that are dangerous to Westerners including the US are suppressed. Human rights are not a high priority for them. We are supposedly champions of human rights, but when push comes to shove the “stability” of the country is the key. I understand it, but it's still sad.





http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-announces-major-government-shake-royal-decrees-220346263.html

New Saudi king announces major government shake-up: royal decrees
AFP January 29, 2015

Riyadh (AFP) - Saudi Arabia's new King Salman on Thursday further cemented his hold on power, with a sweeping shakeup that saw two sons of the late King Abdullah fired, and the heads of intelligence and other key agencies replaced alongside a cabinet reshuffle.

Related Stories
1. Saudi King Salman cements power with appointments AFP
2. Saudi king appoints Mohammed bin Nayef second crown prince AFP
3. New generation enters line to Saudi throne as king mourned Associated Press
4. A Smooth Saudi Succession, but a Rough Road Ahead The Wall Street Journal
5. Saudi King Abdullah dies, Salman is new ruler AFP

"Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud issued a royal order today, relieving Prince Khalid bin Bandar bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, Chief of General Intelligence, of his post," the official Saudi Press Agency said.

The announcement came a week after Salman acceded to the throne following the death of Abdullah, aged about 90.

A separate decree said Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a nephew of Abdullah, was removed from his posts as Secretary General of the National Security Council and adviser to the king.

Two sons of the late monarch were also fired: Prince Mishaal, governor of the Mecca region, and Prince Turki, who governed the capital Riyadh, according to the decrees broadcast on Saudi television.

Another of Abdullah's sons, Prince Miteb, retained his position as minister in charge of the National Guard, a parallel army of around 200,000 men.

Salman, 79, a half-brother of Abdullah, also named a 31-member cabinet whose new faces included the ministers for culture and information, social affairs, civil service, and communications and information technology, among others.

Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, and Finance Minister Ibrahim al-Assaf kept their posts in the cabinet of the world's leading oil exporter.

Hours after Abdullah died early on January 23, Salman appointed his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as defence minister.

Powerful Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef became second in line to the throne, while Deputy Crown Prince Moqren, 69, was elevated to king-in-waiting.

Moqren would reign as the last son of the kingdom's founder, Abdul Aziz bin Saud, leaving bin Nayef as the first of the "second generation," or grandsons of Abdul Aziz.

In March 2014, King Abdullah named Moqren to the new position of deputy crown prince with the aim of smoothing succession hurdles.

Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, even before he became interior minister, was in charge of a crackdown on Al-Qaeda following a wave of deadly attacks in the Gulf state between 2003 and 2007.

London-based analyst Abdelwahab Badrakhan said Nayef's background implies that as king he would "prioritise security," a fact that "comforts foreign partners, especially the United States," he said.

The appointment helps to solidify control by the new king's Sudayri branch of the royal family, named after Hissa bint Ahmad al-Sudayri, the mother of Salman and his late brother, Nayef.

Their influence had waned under King Abdullah.

Regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and home to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Along with other countries in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia has joined a US-led air campaign against the Islamic State extremist group that has seized parts of Syria and neighbouring Iraq.




“... with a sweeping shakeup that saw two sons of the late King Abdullah fired, and the heads of intelligence and other key agencies replaced alongside a cabinet reshuffle.... Another of Abdullah's sons, Prince Miteb, retained his position as minister in charge of the National Guard, a parallel army of around 200,000 men. Salman, 79, a half-brother of Abdullah, also named a 31-member cabinet whose new faces included the ministers for culture and information, social affairs, civil service, and communications and information technology, among others.... Powerful Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef became second in line to the throne, while Deputy Crown Prince Moqren, 69, was elevated to king-in-waiting. Moqren would reign as the last son of the kingdom's founder, Abdul Aziz bin Saud, leaving bin Nayef as the first of the "second generation," or grandsons of Abdul Aziz.... Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, even before he became interior minister, was in charge of a crackdown on Al-Qaeda following a wave of deadly attacks in the Gulf state between 2003 and 2007. London-based analyst Abdelwahab Badrakhan said Nayef's background implies that as king he would "prioritise security," a fact that "comforts foreign partners, especially the United States," he said.... Along with other countries in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia has joined a US-led air campaign against the Islamic State extremist group that has seized parts of Syria and neighbouring Iraq.”

These new appointments look to be good for a peaceful and secure world situation. Al Qaeda and ISIS are under control. Of course this says nothing about women's rights. Oh, well. Perhaps that will come later – Saudi women given the right to drive a car? Sometimes I'm simply glad I was born in the USA and that we haven't (yet) become a place where we have very few civil rights.





http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/29/1360958/-Texas-bill-will-allow-teachers-to-kill-students-to-protect-school-property

Texas bill will allow teachers to kill students to protect school 'property'
Hunter
THU JAN 29, 2015

This may be the most Texas thing I have ever heard.

The Lone Star State already permits teachers to have firearms in the classroom, but H.B. 868, also known as the Teacher’s Protection Act, would authorize instructors to use “force or deadly force on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored event in defense of the educator’s person or in defense of students of the school that employs the educator.” Instructors would also have the right to use deadly force “in defense of property of the school that employs the educator.” Moreover, civil immunity would be granted to those who use deadly force, meaning they would not be liable for the injury or death of student.

Having a teacher whip out his or her trusty sidearm to protect one's students from encroaching bears or Muslims or one of Texas's many, many other proud gun toters who may have momentarily lost one's mind is one thing, but instructing teachers that they are to use deadly force in defense of school property and that they don't have to worry about getting sued afterwards, now that adds a whole new layer o' Texas. Presumably this new law is needed because on occasion teachers have come across students defacing school lockers and have been previously unclear on whether or not that is sufficient grounds to shoot them in the head (answer: yes!) or because little Timmy (oh, who am I kidding, little Miguel) is preparing to carve his initials into a desk and only a teacher's well-placed bullet can stop the destruction of school property that is about to occur. (This also stands to make turn-in-your-textbooks day considerably more exciting. Better hope I don't see any penned-in mustaches in your history book, you little snots.)

I'm honestly trying to come up with a scenario in which having a teacher execute someone on campus "in defense of" school "property" does not sound like the dumbest thing anyone has ever proposed, and I'm drawing a blank. Perhaps the bill's author, State Rep. Dan Flynn (R-BecauseDuh), has this sketched out in his own mind, but the rest of us may need a bit more explanation. Then again, summary execution for property crimes has been high on the Texas list of must-have laws for some time now, so expanding it to every teacher at your kid's school must no doubt be considered a perfectly logical extension.





“Instructors would also have the right to use deadly force “in defense of property of the school that employs the educator.” Moreover, civil immunity would be granted to those who use deadly force, meaning they would not be liable for the injury or death of student.... I'm honestly trying to come up with a scenario in which having a teacher execute someone on campus "in defense of" school "property" does not sound like the dumbest thing anyone has ever proposed, and I'm drawing a blank. Perhaps the bill's author, State Rep. Dan Flynn (R-BecauseDuh), has this sketched out in his own mind, but the rest of us may need a bit more explanation. Then again, summary execution for property crimes has been high on the Texas list of must-have laws for some time now, so expanding it to every teacher at your kid's school must no doubt be considered a perfectly logical extension.”

How many residents of Texas actually agree with laws like this? How many others think they are a sign of insanity? What this reminds me of most is the so-called “broken windows” theory of policing which has come to mean that officers will actually physically abuse or even kill (mostly black) people over the perceived running of a stop sign.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wile-e-coyote-inspires-new-way-to-diagnose-concussions/

Wile E. Coyote inspires new way to diagnose concussions
By JONATHAN LAPOOK CBS NEWS
January 29, 2015

NEW YORK -- Dirk Kaufman, 51, was riding his bike last March when he was hit by a car. He wound up in the emergency room at Bellevue hospital.

"What the hell happened?" wondered Kaufman when he first woke up.

What happened was a concussion with memory loss and confusion. In Kaufman's case the injury did not show up on a CT scan. But less obvious cases of concussion are harder to diagnose, says neurosurgeon doctor Uzma Samadani.

"Concussions actually have 43 different definitions and that's part of the problem is that nobody knows how to define it and therefore nobody knows how to diagnose it or count the incidence of it," said Samadani.

Samadani and her team at NYU's Cohen Veterans Center are developing a way to diagnose concussion by measuring how the eyes track a moving image, in this case an animated movie clip. 97 percent of healthy people move their eyes together at a very predictable rate.

Thursday's study found emergency room patients with symptoms of concussion had problems with eye tracking, even when their CT scans showed no evidence of brain injury. The study also found the more severe the symptoms, the more abnormal the tracking.

Cartoonists have known that for years. In their animations, when a character is bonked on the head, their eyes go every which way.

"Wile E. Coyote is a classic example," said Samadani. "He gets hit on the head, has abnormal eye movements. That's how you diagnosed concussion in the 1950s when Wile E. Coyote was created."

Injured athletes can downplay symptoms in order to keep playing.

"I think it's really important that there's an objective measure," said Samadani. "You can't fake whether or not your eyes can move together. If someone has a brain injury you're going to be able to detect it."

Fortunately Kaufman's eye tracking returned to normal in about two weeks. Dr. Samadani has submitted patents for this experimental technology and is part owner of a company that holds the license.




Maybe now there will be no good excuse for high school football coaches putting their best player back in the game despite a recent concussion. O, woe is me! The home team may have to lose a game now!




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spokane-washington-woman-updates-on-comcast-ahole-debacle/

Spokane, Washington, woman updates on Comcast "a**hole" debacle

By DAVID HANCOCK CBS NEWS
January 29, 2015

Lisa Brown, the Spokane, Washington, woman whose billing account was renamed with a profanity after a run-in with a Comcast customer service representative, said Thursday she is "pretty satisfied" with attempts by Comcast to make good.

Brown's story has gone viral after news hit that the billing name on her family Comcast account was renamed "A**hole Brown" instead of her husband's name, Ricardo Brown.

This came after a protracted call with Comcast in which Lisa Brown said she was trying to scale back their service to save money. They were instead passed to a consumer retention specialist who tried to keep their business.

And then came the day they got their bill addressed to "A**hole Brown."

"I was shocked," said Lisa Brown. "I was upset. I didn't think we deserved it."

The story broke Wednesday when a consumer advocacy blogger wrote about it on the Elliott.org web site.

A day later, it's been picked up by numerous websites. Brown said she was doing interviews Thursday with Fox Business News and possibly CNN. The Browns' story has been the number 1 story on CBSNews.com since it was published Wednesday night.

It's not the first public relations black eye for Philadelphia-based Comcast, the country's largest cable service provider. Last August, CBSNews.com reported how one customer was put on hold for three hours while trying to cancel service. Another customer recorded the difficulty he had canceling service over an eight-minute phone call.

Brown said she spoke with Charlie Herrin, Comcast's senior vice president for customer experience, who expressed sincere apologies to the couple. Herrin issued a statement on the Comcast website, saying that the person who changed the billing account has been let go.

"In every interaction we have with a customer, we need to show them respect, patience, and enthusiasm to provide them with an excellent experience," Herrin said in the statement.

"He was very professional, very polite, very apologetic," said Brown. "He tried to turn it around."

Comcast has cleared the couple's existing balance of about $150 and verbally promised to refund their payments to Comcast for the past two years, Brown said.

"I'm very satisfied with what they've said to me verbally," she said. "I'm still in the waiting process, though."




“Lisa Brown, the Spokane, Washington, woman whose billing account was renamed with a profanity after a run-in with a Comcast customer service representative, said Thursday she is "pretty satisfied" with attempts by Comcast to make good.... Brown said she spoke with Charlie Herrin, Comcast's senior vice president for customer experience, who expressed sincere apologies to the couple. Herrin issued a statement on the Comcast website, saying that the person who changed the billing account has been let go. "In every interaction we have with a customer, we need to show them respect, patience, and enthusiasm to provide them with an excellent experience," Herrin said in the statement. "He was very professional, very polite, very apologetic," said Brown. "He tried to turn it around."... The story broke Wednesday when a consumer advocacy blogger wrote about it on the Elliott.org web site. A day later, it's been picked up by numerous websites. Brown said she was doing interviews Thursday with Fox Business News and possibly CNN. The Browns' story has been the number 1 story on CBSNews.com since it was published Wednesday night.”

I parted ways with Comcast two years or so ago when crystal clear broadcast channels became available with the aid of a $20.00 antenna. At that point they were charging me $60.00 a month for local news, CNN, Fox, and some special channels that I wanted, especially History, A&E, TLC and Discovery. I miss those channels, but I get my local news via Broadcast. Unfortunately PBS won't come in, I think because they are too poverty stricken (or stingy?) to put out a sufficiently strong signal. I still give a donation to NPR radio who give excellent service, but not to the TV channel. I haven't told them why.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/30/382260897/could-this-virus-be-good-for-you

Could This Virus Be Good For You?
Richard Harris
January 30, 2015

Photograph – Augustine Goba (right) heads the laboratory at Kenema Government Hospital in Sierra Leone. He and colleagues analyzed the viral genetics in blood samples from 78 Ebola patients early in the epidemic.

Viruses are usually thought of as the bad guys — causing everything from Ebola and AIDS to hepatitis and measles. But scientists have been following the curious story of a particular virus that might actually be good for you.

The virus is called GB Virus-C, and more than a billion people alive today have apparently been infected with it at some point during their lives, says Dr. Jack Stapleton, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Iowa.

At first, the scientists who named the virus thought it caused hepatitis in a surgeon (whose initials were "GB"). But it turns out the virus actually came from a small monkey — a marmoset — that had been used in an experiment to diagnose the surgeon. GBV-C had nothing to do with the surgeon's illness, but that serendipitous finding has led researchers on a globe-trotting investigation of the life and times of this microbial hitchhiker.

Some studies in recent years have hinted that persistent infection with this virus might slow disease progression in some people infected with HIV — leading Stapleton to suggest that maybe the "GB" in the virus's name should stand for Good Boy.

The latest chapter in this saga involves Ebola.

In a widely reported study last summer, Pardis Sabeti, a computational biologist at Harvard, collaborated with colleagues who collected plasma from Ebola patients in West Africa (at great personal expense to the scientists — five of them died while carrying out this research). Sabeti's team sifted through that material looking for RNA (the genetic material in Ebola viruses). And they posted the genetic sequence of all the RNA they found in a public database at the National Institutes of Health.

David O'Connor, a pathology professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, realized that digital treasure trove might also include information about GBV-C. And sure enough, he found the genetic fingerprints of that virus in the records of 13 samples of blood plasma from the Ebola study. Though six of the 13 people who were co-infected with Ebola and GBV-C died, seven survived.

Had the GBV-C virus helped to improve the odds of the Ebola patients who survived? The numbers studied are far too tiny to know. But the question is worth pursuing, say O'Connor and his colleagues in their description of the work, published in the February issue of the Journal of Virology.

"We're very cautious about over-interpreting these results," O'Connor tells NPR. He's now waiting to get a bigger sample, to see if there really is a strong connection between GBV-C infection and survival. It could simply be that people aged 20 to 40 are more likely to be infected with GBV-C — and more likely to survive Ebola.

But there is a theoretical reason why the virus might be helpful: It infects a type of white blood cell and (when an infection is active) it apparently damps down part of the immune system. With HIV, the thought is that the virus helps reduce inflammation, and that in turn helps slow the onset of AIDS.

"It's not severe — it's not enough that it makes people immune-suppressed," Stapleton says, "but it does reduce the inflammatory response of immune cells."

Hypothetically, this virus might also reduce inflammation in some people fighting off a roaring Ebola infection. "It's something you would predict," Stapleton says. "Although often what you predict doesn't happen, so I wouldn't have predicted it." But if that's the case, perhaps drugs that act in a similar manner would help as well.

And beyond the possible implications for HIV and Ebola, O'Connor says, "we're getting to some of these greater questions about ... other situations where this might be beneficial."

There's been some talk about deliberately infecting people with GBV-C, in instances where doctors want to turn down the immune system. "That might be something worth testing in a clinical trial," O'Connor says.

"The thinking is," he says, "this infects hundreds of millions of people around the world today; we knowingly transmit it in blood transfusions. It's essentially a safe virus."

But it may not be entirely harmless.

Last October, Stapleton and collaborators at the National Institutes of Health published a study suggesting that people with a cancer of the lymphatic system, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, were more likely to be infected with GBV-C. If the virus actually increases the risk of this disease, it must be by only a small amount; having the virus is much more common than having the cancer.
Again, the evidence of a cancer link is only suggestive. "If it turns out there is actually a risk for cancer, that would provide another reason to find out more about this virus," O'Connor says.

"We always have a bias," he says, assuming that viruses are bad for us. "But now with new technologies, we're finding there are viruses like GBV-C ... that don't seem to cause disease."

How many more viruses like this might be lurking?

"I actually think it's not that many," Stapleton says, "and I wouldn't have said that 10 years ago." Because the technology that helped identify this virus in Ebola blood samples is so powerful, he reasons, it should also reveal other lurking viruses – if they're there — in similar studies of human tissue.

"At least if you look at the many, many [types of virus] that we now know about," he says, "not many are showing up."




“But scientists have been following the curious story of a particular virus that might actually be good for you. The virus is called GB Virus-C, and more than a billion people alive today have apparently been infected with it at some point during their lives, says Dr. Jack Stapleton, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Iowa.... Some studies in recent years have hinted that persistent infection with this virus might slow disease progression in some people infected with HIV — leading Stapleton to suggest that maybe the "GB" in the virus's name should stand for Good Boy. The latest chapter in this saga involves Ebola.... And they posted the genetic sequence of all the RNA they found in a public database at the National Institutes of Health. David O'Connor, a pathology professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, realized that digital treasure trove might also include information about GBV-C. And sure enough, he found the genetic fingerprints of that virus in the records of 13 samples of blood plasma from the Ebola study. Though six of the 13 people who were co-infected with Ebola and GBV-C died, seven survived.... But there is a theoretical reason why the virus might be helpful: It infects a type of white blood cell and (when an infection is active) it apparently damps down part of the immune system. With HIV, the thought is that the virus helps reduce inflammation, and that in turn helps slow the onset of AIDS. "It's not severe — it's not enough that it makes people immune-suppressed," Stapleton says, "but it does reduce the inflammatory response of immune cells."... " But if that's the case, perhaps drugs that act in a similar manner would help as well. And beyond the possible implications for HIV and Ebola, O'Connor says, "we're getting to some of these greater questions about ... other situations where this might be beneficial."... But it may not be entirely harmless. Last October, Stapleton and collaborators at the National Institutes of Health published a study suggesting that people with a cancer of the lymphatic system, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, were more likely to be infected with GBV-C. If the virus actually increases the risk of this disease, it must be by only a small amount; having the virus is much more common than having the cancer.”

So here we have a “good boy” virus which can behave like a broadscope antiviral agent? If it saves a small but significant group of people who otherwise would have died, it's worth trying, as long as it can be proven to be relatively harmless to patients who are injected with it. The article says it “has been found” in people with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but the prevalence of the virus is greater than that of the cancer. Is it possible that the virus is actually helping people with the cancer to recover from it rather than causing it? So the science is in the beginning stage on the “good boy” virus, but may be very important in fighting things like Ebola which is a major killer for the most part. Maybe large numbers of people in Africa, especially where fruit bats are found, could be injected with helpful if not completely effective results. I hope so, anyway.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382480700/dartmouth-bans-hard-liquor-on-campus

Dartmouth Bans Hard Liquor On Campus
Krishnadev Calamur
JANUARY 29, 2015

Dartmouth College is banninghard liquor on campus and will introduce a mandatory four-year sexual violence prevention and education program for students. The steps are part of Dartmouth President Philip Hanlon's plans to reform social life at the Ivy League college.

"Colleges and universities across the country face the issues I've detailed today," Hanlon said in a speech today. "We are not alone in facing them, but we will take the lead in saying, 'No more.' "

Reporter Allison Quantz tells our Newscast unit that Hanlon is expanding on changes already underway within Dartmouth's fraternities and sororities. She says:

"The Ivy League college in New Hampshire has made news for allegations of extreme hazing and racism. Dartmouth is also one of more than 90 colleges under federal review for apparent mishandling of sexual assault cases. The hard liquor ban adds to a spate of reforms already proposed by the Greek system itself."

Dartmouth senior Taylor Payer told Quantz she hoped the Greek system would be banned altogether.

"It's going to promote sexual assault and binge-drinking as long as it exists, and no amount of banning hard alcohol is going to solve any of that," she said.

In his speech, Hanlon said if major changes to the Greek system weren't enacted within several years, the college would re-evaluate the future of Greek life on campus.

The ban on hard liquor — which is being defined as anything 15 percent or more — will take effect March 30, when the spring term begins.




It looks as though Dartmouth is thinking of doing something that should be done on college courses nationwide – putting a tight grip on the hijinks of fraternity houses. Isn't it interesting that you never see sorority houses with incidents of death from a hazing ritual? If colleges clamp down on the Fraternities so they become afraid to do some of their dangerous activities, we will have a better, healthier, safer experience for college students, especially girls who can't resist going to fraternity parties.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382464912/scientists-general-public-have-divergent-views-on-science-report-says

Scientists, General Public Have Divergent Views On Science, Report Says
Scott Neuman
January 29, 2015

U.S. adults see various science-related topics much differently than do America's top scientists, with the two groups expressing widely divergent views on the safety of genetically modified foods, climate change, human evolution, the use of animals in research and vaccines, according to a new report published by Pew Research Center.

The report, Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society, was based on surveys of a sample of U.S. adults and, separately, a survey of scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS.

The findings were published today by the Pew Center's Internet, Science & Tech.

According to the report, the public is much less likely to view GM foods as safe to eat than the AAAS scientists (37 percent to 88 percent), even though 67 percent of the nonscientists surveyed acknowledged that they lacked a "clear understanding" of the health effects of GM crops.

Other topics with the widest gaps between the views of scientists and nonscientists include a 40-point gap between the two groups on whether eating food grown with pesticides is safe or not. Only 28 percent of the public believes it is "generally safe" to eat such foods (68 percent say it is "generally unsafe"), as opposed to 68 percent of the scientists who say it is safe (31 percent responding "generally unsafe").

Should animals be used in scientific research? Half of U.S. adults surveyed said no, a view expressed by only 9 percent of the scientists.

Although the divide on the subject of human evolution was slightly less wide than on some other topics, the unanimity of thought among the AAAS scientists was notable: 65 percent of adults surveyed say that humans evolved over time (31 percent say they "existed in present form since [the] beginning"). But among scientists, the split was 98 percent to 2 percent.

Overall, nearly a third of the public says "scientists generally do not agree" on evolution. However, nearly half of the people who say they do not believe in evolution also thought scientists disagree on the subject.

Of the AAAS scientists surveyed, 86 percent say that parents should be required to have their children vaccinated, while only 68 percent of the public believes that.

Finally, on climate change, there was a 37-point gap between the two groups surveyed. Eighty-seven percent of the scientists say that the Earth is getting warmer "because of human activity"; only half of U.S. adults agree.

Just 9 percent of the scientists say climate change is the result of "natural patterns" — an answer that 23 percent of U.S. adults surveyed gave.

Likewise, one quarter of the public says there's "no solid evidence" of climate change at all, a response that only 3 percent of the scientists gave. Lastly, more than three-quarters of AAAS scientists called climate change "a very serious problem," while just one-third of the public thinks so.

Given the views expressed by the general public, it isn't surprising that 84 percent of the AAAS scientists describe the public's lack of understanding of science as a "major problem." Just over half of the scientists surveyed say media oversimplification of scientific findings is a problem; nearly the same number say "the public expects solutions too quickly."

You can see a breakdown of the methodology for the surveys here.




“The report, Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society, was based on surveys of a sample of U.S. adults and, separately, a survey of scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS. The findings were published today by the Pew Center's Internet, Science & Tech. According to the report, the public is much less likely to view GM foods as safe to eat than the AAAS scientists (37 percent to 88 percent), even though 67 percent of the nonscientists surveyed acknowledged that they lacked a "clear understanding" of the health effects of GM crops. Other topics with the widest gaps between the views of scientists and nonscientists include a 40-point gap between the two groups on whether eating food grown with pesticides is safe or not. Only 28 percent of the public believes it is "generally safe" to eat such foods (68 percent say it is "generally unsafe"), as opposed to 68 percent of the scientists who say it is safe (31 percent responding "generally unsafe").... Although the divide on the subject of human evolution was slightly less wide than on some other topics, the unanimity of thought among the AAAS scientists was notable: 65 percent of adults surveyed say that humans evolved over time (31 percent say they "existed in present form since [the] beginning"). But among scientists, the split was 98 percent to 2 percent. Overall, nearly a third of the public says "scientists generally do not agree" on evolution. However, nearly half of the people who say they do not believe in evolution also thought scientists disagree on the subject.... Of the AAAS scientists surveyed, 86 percent say that parents should be required to have their children vaccinated, while only 68 percent of the public believes that. Finally, on climate change, there was a 37-point gap between the two groups surveyed. Eighty-seven percent of the scientists say that the Earth is getting warmer "because of human activity"; only half of U.S. adults agree. Just 9 percent of the scientists say climate change is the result of "natural patterns" — an answer that 23 percent of U.S. adults surveyed gave. Likewise, one quarter of the public says there's "no solid evidence" of climate change at all, a response that only 3 percent of the scientists gave. Lastly, more than three-quarters of AAAS scientists called climate change "a very serious problem," while just one-third of the public thinks so.”

“Given the views expressed by the general public, it isn't surprising that 84 percent of the AAAS scientists describe the public's lack of understanding of science as a "major problem." Just over half of the scientists surveyed say media oversimplification of scientific findings is a problem; nearly the same number say "the public expects solutions too quickly." Scientific knowledge is almost exclusively built upon prior discoveries and studies, which then stimulate new research. The research takes months to years to complete, then is has to be written in a peer review journal (not “magazine”) and other scientists are given a chance to dispute the results. A promising paper will be discussed in the news media who have science editors with scientific background to report on the article. It then should be tested by other scientists to verify how the experiment was carried out and what their results show. This is why it has, in the end, a large likelihood of being accurate.

Even the theory of evolution, which given that it covers many thousands to millions of years and therefore cannot be replicated, has been studied by geneticists who study things like the rate of mutations over time, and who compare the DNA in three thousand year old bones (and much older now) to that of a modern example for changes that have developed. That has been done on human bones as well as dinosaur bones, etc., so some idea of the way inherited changes developed into new members of the family tree can be shown and argued logically.

A lot of what scientists do is argue. There was a story a few years ago that several scientists have been paid to write skeptical reviews of global warming and evolution studies. Many highly religious people are wealthy and can join “conservative” think tanks to dispute theories which the oil and coal companies don't like. They don't like anything about CO2 escaping into the atmosphere and causing world level changes, so they say that it shouldn't be “believed.” What I like least about religion – other than its tendency to start wars – is the absolute requirement that its members “believe” things rather than “learning” or “thinking” things. Such people are easy to manipulate and control. No wonder the “conservatives” love them so. They are helping to turn the USA into people who never question the government or sue for damages or boycott things that are for sale, and certainly don't take to the streets and demonstrate over anything.

Most people in this country don't go to scientific journal articles to figure out what they believe. Okay, they can't read that kind of writing, but they can usually read Science News or National Geographic. They don't, though. They go to the next door neighbor (peer review on the non-scientific level) or to their minister. Science doesn't have a chance in the face of that. Unfortunately, the whole human race is going to pay for this by the ongoing results of global warming, rampant epidemics of disease, and inadequate medical care. Many people have a pet theory, like the food in the grocery store is probably dangerous due to insecticides and genetic tinkering, or a food supplement that is not regulated by any government agency as the drug companies are is in fact a superior form of self-medication than an antibiotic. Many people are actually afraid of doctors, or hate them because they have been treated dismissively by doctors when they came in repeatedly with bogus symptoms. Who is the authority of what is true? Not the man on the street, in my view.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382132715/report-the-increasingly-unequal-states-of-america

Report: The Increasingly Unequal States Of America
Jasmine Garsd
1/29/2015

A study released this week supports previous reporting that income growth in America has been lopsided ever since the economy began to bounce back from the recent recession.

The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank, examined federal tax data, state-by-state, and found the national trend of lopsided growth persists. The center's report is titled The Increasingly Unequal States Of America.

The research was led by Estelle Sommeiller, a socio-economist at the Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales in France, and Mark Price, a labor economist at the Keystone Research Center in Harrisburg, Penn. Price told NPR that since 1979, "in almost every state, there's been more growth in income for the top one percent, than for the bottom 99 percent [of Americans]."

And while the last few years have seen the U.S. recovering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, economist Justin Wolfers writes in The New York Times that, setting aside capital gains "which are largely enjoyed by the rich, it remains the case that nearly all the fruits of that recovery have gone to the rich."

There are some exceptions. In West Virginia, incomes of the top one percent actually fell, while the rest of the population's grew. Incomes rose both for the top one percent and for the rest of the population in Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, New Mexico, Kentucky, Alaska and Hawaii.

North Dakota 99 percent's income lags amid energy boom

Mark Price highlighted North Dakota as an extreme example. The income of the bottom 99 percent has grown by 21 percent since 2000. That's because they've been riding an energy boom which has created millionaires. "At the same time," Price said, "the top one percent in North Dakota's income grew by 103 percent. You still see the national pattern, which is that most of the growth is going to that tiny fraction of folks."

Not all states have benefited in the same way from the energy boom. Pennsylvania has also been exploring its energy resources, but its unemployment has been in line with the national average.

"The numbers here are much worse," said Price. "The bottom 99 percent have actually lost ground, and the top one percent have seen growth of about 28 percent." That, Price explained, is in part because the oil and gas industry doesn't typically employ as many people as, say, the health industry. But it's also because Pennsylvania has over 17 times the population of North Dakota, and a far more diverse economy, so it's harder to make a dent in a recession.

A Morgan Stanley poll of over 300 millionaires found that most of them list the "increasing income gap between poor and wealthy Americans" as a top concern.

And while 2015 is expected to bring more growth in income for all sectors, Price said his concern is that the results are going to continue looking a lot like North Dakota: most of the gains will go to people at the top.




“The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank, examined federal tax data, state-by-state, and found the national trend of lopsided growth persists. The center's report is titled The Increasingly Unequal States Of America. The research was led by Estelle Sommeiller, a socio-economist at the Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales in France, and Mark Price, a labor economist at the Keystone Research Center in Harrisburg, Penn. Price told NPR that since 1979, "in almost every state, there's been more growth in income for the top one percent, than for the bottom 99 percent [of Americans]."... economist Justin Wolfers writes in The New York Timesthat, setting aside capital gains "which are largely enjoyed by the rich, it remains the case that nearly all the fruits of that recovery have gone to the rich." There are some exceptions. In West Virginia, incomes of the top one percent actually fell, while the rest of the population's grew. Incomes rose both for the top one percent and for the rest of the population in Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, New Mexico, Kentucky, Alaska and Hawaii.... Mark Price highlighted North Dakota as an extreme example. The income of the bottom 99 percent has grown by 21 percent since 2000. That's because they've been riding an energy boom which has created millionaires. … A Morgan Stanley poll of over 300 millionaires found that most of them list the "increasing income gap between poor and wealthy Americans" as a top concern. And while 2015 is expected to bring more growth in income for all sectors, Price said his concern is that the results are going to continue looking a lot like North Dakota: most of the gains will go to people at the top.”

So if Morgan Stanley's 300 millionaires are concerned about the great divide, what are they doing about it? Maybe they are Democrats? There are probably at least several thousand millionaires in Hollywood among the socially active groups. That's not the whole story, however. See the following excerpt from a CNN article on the subject. Out of the reported number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, excluding primary residence, which amounts to 9.63 million as of 2013, according to a new report from Spectrem Group, a consulting and research firm, how many of those people are worried about the still growing divide between the rich and the poor? Are almost all very wealthy people Republicans? I would like to know the answer to that. The USA Today article “Republican Big Bucks Backfire,” below, discusses that. USA Today says the very wealthy are conservative right now, but their children are much more liberal. Maybe there's hope for the USA after all.


http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires-households/
Number of U.S. millionaires hits new high
By Emily Jane Fox
March 14, 2014

It looks like the rich have finally shaken off the recession.

The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, excluding primary residence, rose to 9.63 million in 2013, according to a new report from Spectrem Group, a consulting and research firm.

That's more than a 600,000 leap up from 2012, and the highest number on record.

Related: The Super Rich are mad as hell - and doing great

This is the first year that the number has surpassed the pre-recession high of 9.2 million in 2007. Once the global financial meltdown hit and the bottom fell out of the market, the number tanked to 6.7 million in 2008.

"The last few years, we've seen the number continually increase, but this was the first year that we're finally beyond the economic crisis," said George Walper, Jr., president of Spectrem Group.

He said that the market reaching all-time highs last year, coupled with an improving real estate market, drove the rich to get even richer.

Related: The richest (and poorest) in Congress

The ultra-wealthy weren't lagging behind. Walper said both the number of households with a net worth of $5 million and above and $25 million or more reached the highest numbers since Spectrem started tracking the figures.

There were 1.24 million households with a net worth of $5 million or more last year, up from 840,000 in 2008. Those with $25 million and above climbed to 132,000 in 2013, up from 84,000 in 2008.

"Because of their levels of wealth, they increased their exposure to equities during the downturn and were making investments in real estate when the market was at the bottom," he said. "That's why now they've benefited the most from the return in the economy." 



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/11/millionaire-inheritance-wealth-heirs-democrats-republicans-liberal-children-column/13910613/

Republican big bucks backfire: Column
Darrell M. West
August 11, 2014

As America's billionaires age, conservatives' wealth will flow to their liberal children.

The recent death of Richard Mellon Scaife marks the start of a massive transfer of politically focused wealth to a new generation. For those who might have forgotten, Scaife was the Charles and David Koch of the 1990s.


He used his wealth to influence the political process. He is most famous for funding investigations into Bill and Hillary Clinton throughout that decade and popularizing the strategy that came to be known as "the politics of personal destruction." In many respects, his efforts, which Hillary Clinton called a "vast right-wing conspiracy," were precursors of the highly polarizing attack-oriented politics that we see today.

Today, many wealthy individuals are deeply involved in politics. They have billions of dollars at work, pioneering new models of political engagement that combine directelectoral advocacy, issue advocacy, politically oriented philanthropy and thepurchase of major news media organizations.

Yet many of these individuals are elderly and facing the prospect of an intergenerational wealth transfer. According to Forbes magazine, 60% of the world's1,645 billionaires are older than 60. Collectively, they control nearly $6.4 trillion in financial assets.

Many of the 492 American billionaires are well into their 80s, which means that soon there is going to be an asset reallocation that will have a substantial political impact.

Clock ticking

The big question is whether their children will support the same causes. ConsiderHarold Simmons, the generous supporter of conservative political causes who passed away in December. In 2012, he contributed $18 million to political action committees seeking to defeat President Obama. Simmons told The Wall Street Journal that the president was "the most dangerous American alive … because he would eliminate free enterprise in this country."

With his death, much of his philanthropic empire has passed to his daughters, Serena Simmons Connelly and Lisa Simmons. These daughters have dramatically different policy priorities from their father and have long supported Democratic andprogressive causes, including the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton has raised eyebrows with her recent $25,000 contribution to the Ready for Hillary super PAC. Most of the family has a history ofsupporting conservative causes and Republican candidates. Indeed, it was President George H.W. Bush who awarded family patriarch Sam Walton the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But his daughter Alice has encouraged Hillary Clinton to seek the presidency, and grandson Sam Walton donated $300,000 to Obama's Priorities USA Action super PAC in 2012.

In looking at the history of philanthropy, it is not unusual for children to have different perspectives from their parents. Ted Turner's son Teddy ran as a conservative Republican in a South Carolina congressional race. He told GOP audiences that he doesn't agree with his father on many issues and joked that "you can't pick your parents."

Right now, much of the billionaire political activism has been on the conservative side. In 2012, six of the top ten contributors to super PACS gave $168 million to GOP candidates, while four favored Democrats for a total of $42 million.

Not surprisingly, many conservatives say there should be few restrictions on political advocacy by the super rich.

But on many political issues, young people are noticeably more liberal than their parents. This clearly is the case on social issues such as marriage equality, abortionrights and immigration reform. It is also true for environmental protection.

Deregulatory regret

When conservative wealth passes to more liberal children, it could have dramatic political consequences. Many conservatives applaud billionaires who spend hundreds of millions of dollars advocating conservative solutions to policy issues. They support Supreme Court decisions that have blown gaping holes in campaign-finance disclosure rules. They ignore blatant conflicts of interest between big money and the policy process in areas such as taxes and regulation.

When large wealth passes to the next generation, though, conservatives will start to understand the threat posed by big money in American politics. They may rue the day they encouraged wealthy benefactors to enter the political arena without required disclosure or transparency.


Darrell M. West, vice president of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, is author of the forthcoming book Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to theopinion front page or follow us on twitter@USATopinion or Facebook.