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.