Tuesday, February 24, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rudy-giuliani-let-me-explain-why-i-said-obama-doesnt-love-america/

Rudy Giuliani: "Let me explain" why I said Obama doesn't love America
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS
February 23, 2015

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is still trying to explain why he said earlier this month that he doesn't believe President Obama loves America.

Giuliani's latest attempt at damage control: An op-ed published Monday in the Wall Street Journal in which he insisted, "My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn't love America notwithstanding, I didn't intend to question President Obama's motives or the content of his heart."

"My intended focus really was the effect his words and his actions have on the morale of the country, and how that effect may damage his performance," Giuliani wrote.

Giuliani said the president has made a habit of "criticizing his country more than other presidents have done," echoing arguments from some other conservatives that Mr. Obama "apologizes for America."

"Presidents John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all possessed the ability to walk a fine line by placing any constructive criticisms regarding the ways the country might improve in the context of their unbending belief in American exceptionalism," Giuliani wrote. "Those presidents acknowledged America's flaws, but always led with a fundamental belief in the country's greatness and the example we set for the world."

"To say, as the president has, that American exceptionalism is no more exceptional than the exceptionalism of any other country in the world, does not suggest a becoming and endearing modesty, but rather a stark lack of moral clarity," he added.

Giuliani kicked off the firestorm earlier this month at a dinner featuring Wisconsin Gov. (and potential 2016 presidential candidate) Scott Walker, when he reportedly said, "I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America...He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country."

After critics accused Giuliani of stoking racism with his remarks, the former mayor told the New York Times, "I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people."

Giuliani also argued in the op-ed the president is too reluctant to stand firmly behind allies like Israel and Ukraine in the face of outside aggressors, and he nodded at concerns among some Republicans about the president's refusal to use the phrase "Islamic extremism" to identify the threat posed by international terrorism.

"Any reluctance to define accurately the beliefs of our enemies helps them camouflage themselves and confuses our military and intelligence efforts," Giuliani said.

The president has said he does not want to feed into the jihadi narrative of a clash of Islam versus the West -- that he wants to deny groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) the mantle of religious legitimacy they crave.

While Giuliani did not back down from the thrust of his point, he did make an attempt at softening his earlier criticism of the president. "Obviously, I cannot read President Obama's mind or heart, and to the extent that my words suggested otherwise, it was not my intention," he wrote. "When asked last week whether I thought the president was a patriot, I said I did, and would repeat that. I bear him no ill will, and in fact think that his personal journey is inspiring and a testament to much of what makes this country great."

Giuliani also tried to offer a pass to other Republicans who have been grilled on whether they agree with his remarks about the president. "Over my years as mayor of New York City and as a federal prosecutor, I earned a certain reputation for being blunt," he wrote. "The thoughts I express, whether clearly or ambiguously, are my own and they are my individual responsibility."




When forcefully expressed dogmatism in religion or patriotism in government become dominant over fairness and our guaranteed freedoms we will degenerate rapidly as the “city upon the hill.” A number of Republicans have been drummed out of the party in the last ten or so years for failing to say the party line with sufficient fervor, and the far right is taking their places. Now they are going after all progressive thinkers, including the President. I was pleased to see that some of the conservatives visibly backed away from Giuliani's stance. They are either more politically savvy than he is or thinkers of a genuinely more independent stamp. I'm glad that he is not running for President in 2016.


http://nfs.sparknotes.com/juliuscaesar/page_22.html – Julius Caesar – “CAESAR
(aside to ANTONY) Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look.
He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-a-fair-tax-rate-it-depends/

What's a fair tax rate? It depends
By MARK THOMA MONEYWATCH
February 24, 2015

How progressive should the U.S. tax system be? Answering this question requires an assumption about what's fair in terms of tax burdens across income groups. But people differ widely on what they consider fair. Therefore, fairness isn't something economic theory can address. Instead, a principle of fairness must be assumed.

For example, the tax literature offers many ways to assess tax burden equity across income groups. Under the principle of "absolute equity," everyone pays exactly the same percentage of income, no matter what his or her total income is. In this case, taxes would be flat rather than progressive.

Under the "benefit principle," an individual's tax burden is equal to the value of the government-provided goods and services the individual consumes (which is very difficult to calculate). If the rich are willing to pay more for services than the poor, or if the rich use more services than the poor (e.g. airports, police protection of businesses and homes, museums, performing arts centers and so on) than progressive taxes are justified on this basis. But if the reverse is true, and the poor use more resources than the rich, then the benefit principle points to a regressive tax structure.

The most popular justification for progressive taxes relies on the "ability to pay" principle. Under this definition of equity, the "pain" that each person experiences when paying taxes is the same.

One variant is the "equal marginal sacrifice" principle. It implies that the pain of giving up the last dollar of taxes is equal across income groups. For example, when a poor person pays the last $100 in taxes, it might require giving up a necessity like a pair of shoes for a child. But a high-income person might have to give up only a luxury rather than something essential for well-being. So the burden would be unequal.

The implication is that taxes for the wealthy should be increased, and taxes for the poor should be reduced until both sacrifice equally when they pay the last dollar of taxes.

Recent research (nontechnical summary) examines the progressivity of income taxes on wages across 20 countries. This table summarizes the results:


HOLTER, KRUEGER, AND STEPANCHUK

The first column shows the degree of progressivity according to an index the authors, economists Hans Holter, Dirk Krueger and Serhiy Stepanchuk, developed. A larger number implies a more progressive tax system. The second column shows the degree of "relative progressivity," with the U.S. defined as 1.0 (that is, it's the ratio of a country's progressivity index to the index for the U.S.).

According to this analysis, taxes on wage income in the U.S. have a relatively low degree of progressivity. One rationale for this comes from supply-side economics, the idea that lower taxes on the wealthy will spur economic growth. However,little evidence supports the claim that growth rates in the U.S. have been higher as a result of "trickle down" tax cuts on the wealthy in the past. So, this economic argument doesn't hold up when compared to the evidence.

Is progressivity in the U.S. too low? The degree of progressivity in U.S. taxes -- the question of whether the current distribution of tax burdens is fair -- must be decided in the political arena. Economists can predict what might happen to GDP, prices, employment, etc. when taxes are changed, although as supply-side tax cuts show, those predictions are often unreliable.

But economists cannot say whether it's more or less fair to take a dollar from one person and give it to another (in effect what changing the degree of progressivity does). That's for all of us, through our political representatives, to decide.



Supply-side economics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues thateconomic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.[2]

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used byHerbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."[4][5]

Historical origins[edit]

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s.[6] It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly the Chicago School andNeo-Classical School.[citation needed] Bruce Bartlett, an advocate of supply-side economics, traced the school of thought's intellectual descent from the philosophers Ibn Khaldun and David Hume, satirist Jonathan Swift, political economist Adam Smith, and even United States 'Founding Father' Alexander Hamilton.[7]

Their claim was that each man had a right to himself and his property and therefore taxation was immoral and of questionable legal grounding.[citation needed]Supply-side economists, on the other hand, argued that the alleged collective benefit (i.e. jobs) provided the main impetus for tax cuts.

As in classical economics, supply-side economics proposed that production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. Early on this idea had been summarized in Say's Law of economics, which states: "A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." John Maynard Keynes, the founder of Keynesianism, summarized Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." He turned Say's Law on its head in the 1930s by declaring that demand creates its own supply.[8]

In 1978, Jude Wanniski published The Way the World Works, in which he laid out the central thesis of supply-side economics and detailed the failure of high tax-rate progressive income tax systems and U.S. monetary policy under Nixon in the 1970s. Wanniski advocated lower tax rates and a return to some kind of gold standard, similar to the 1944–1971 Bretton Woods System that Nixon abandoned.

In 1983, economist Victor Canto, a disciple of Arthur Laffer, published The Foundations of Supply-Side Economics.[9] This theory focuses on the effects ofmarginal tax rates on the incentive to work and save, which affect the growth of the "supply side" or what Keynesians call potential output. While the latter focus on changes in the rate of supply-side growth in the long run, the "new" supply-siders often promised short-term results.

Laffer curve[edit]

Laffer curve: t* represents the rate of taxation at which maximal revenue is generated. This is the curve as drawn by Arthur Laffer,[10] however, the curve need not be single peaked nor symmetrical at 50%.

The supply-siders were influenced strongly by the idea of the Laffer curve, which states that tax rates and tax revenues were distinct—that tax rates too high or too low will not maximize tax revenues. Supply-siders felt that in a high tax rate environment, lowering tax rates to the right level can raise revenue by causing fastereconomic growth.

This led the supply-siders to advocate large reductions in marginal income and capital gains tax rates to encourage allocation of assets to investment, which would produce more supply. Jude Wanniski and many others advocate a zero capital gains rate.[11][12] The increased aggregate supply would result in increased aggregate demand, hence the term "Supply-Side Economics".




“Therefore, fairness isn't something economic theory can address. Instead, a principle of fairness must be assumed. For example, the tax literature offers many ways to assess tax burden equity across income groups. Under the principle of "absolute equity," everyone pays exactly the same percentage of income, no matter what his or her total income is. In this case, taxes would be flat rather than progressive. Under the "benefit principle," an individual's tax burden is equal to the value of the government-provided goods and services the individual consumes (which is very difficult to calculate). If the rich are willing to pay more for services than the poor, or if the rich use more services than the poor (e.g. airports, police protection of businesses and homes, museums, performing arts centers and so on) than progressive taxes are justified on this basis. But if the reverse is true, and the poor use more resources than the rich, then the benefit principle points to a regressive tax structure..... Economists can predict what might happen to GDP, prices, employment, etc. when taxes are changed, although as supply-side tax cuts show, those predictions are often unreliable.”

This is where the Republican insistence that lower tax rates produce more revenue comes from. Also these more lightly taxed corporations will respond by creating greater production and therefore more jobs (trickle down). That hasn't worked out in quite a while now. Jobs have been scarce for longer than the last 8 or 9 years, while meanwhile more young people have entered the workforce to lap up all available jobs. It's not true that the poor are lazy and don't want to work, but that they can't get a job that pays a living wage. Many businesses, in order to avoid paying for retirement and health insurance benefits, has for years now been creating only part time jobs. The goal of businesses is not to create jobs, but to make ever more money. This creates a need for a government financed safety net of food stamps, medical care, unemployment insurance, and affordable housing. Still people drop out the bottom to live on the streets and eat out of garbage cans. Those who don't are barely eking out enough to live on in a safe and healthful way in too many cases.

Many liberal people nowadays believe that our rate of progressivity is not high enough in this country to pay for the needs of the poor and the elderly or disabled, the national security, the infrastructure, protecting the environment, etc. On the chart provided in this CBS article Japan's tax rate is the least progressive, the US is the fourth lowest, and the all other major nations have higher tax rates with Denmark on top. Another very important issue today is the degree of income inequality since 1950 to 1980 when it was at its least extreme as compared to the 1920's. Income inequality first began to be measured around 1915, according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's article on income inequality in the US states:

“Today, U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed countries before taxes and transfers, but is among the worst after taxes and transfers, meaning the U.S. shifts relatively less income from higher income households to lower income households.[2] The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.... While there is strong evidence that income inequality has increased since the 1970s, there is active debate regarding appropriate measurement, causes, effects and solutions.[4] The two major political parties have different approaches to the issue, with Democrats historically emphasizing that economic growth should result in shared prosperity (i.e., a pro-labor argument advocating income redistribution), while Republicans tend to downplay the validity, relevance or ability to positively influence the issue (i.e., a pro-capital argument against redistribution).[5].... The U.S. consistently exhibits higher rates of income inequality than most developed nations due to the nation's enhanced support of free market capitalism.[16][17][18][19][20]

The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[21] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][22][23] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[21][24] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[25]”





ISIS UPDATE



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-captures-scores-of-assyrian-christians-in-hassakeh-province-syria/

Dozens of Christians captured by ISIS in Syria
CBS/AP
February 24, 2015

Photograph – An image posted online by Assyrian Christians in northeast Syria on Feb. 23, 2015 shows smoke rising where ISIS militants were fighting with Kurdish forces near the town of Hassakeh.

Militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) reportedly captured scores of Assyrian Christians from villages in northeast Syria, two activist groups said Tuesday, citing witnesses.

Nuri Kino, the head of the activist group A Demand For Action that focuses on religious minorities in the Middle East, said ISIS fighters were holding between 70 and 100 captive, most of them from the Christian Assyrian village of Tal Shamiram.

Kino said his group based its information on conversations with villagers who fled the onslaught and their relatives.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) put the number of Assyrian captives at 90.

U.S. defense chief summons "Team America" to plan ISIS offensive

The Assyrians were seized from two villages in western Hassakeh province, which forms the northeast corner of Syria, bordering Iraq to the east and Turkey to the north.

Tal Shamiram is located about 50 miles southwest of the Hassakeh provincial capital of Qamishli. ISIS fighters overran Tal Shamiram and other nearby Assyrian villages on Monday.

ISIS has come under increasing pressure in the area in recent days, with Syrian President Bashar Assad sending additional state forces to the front lines and Kurdish fighters and rival rebel groups also squeezing the militants.

SOHR, which relies on an extensive network of contacts inside Syria, reported that 14 ISIS fighters were killed overnight in coalition airstrikes near Qamishli, close to the Turkish border.




“Nuri Kino, the head of the activist group A Demand For Action that focuses on religious minorities in the Middle East, said ISIS fighters were holding between 70 and 100 captive, most of them from the Christian Assyrian village of Tal Shamiram. Kino said his group based its information on conversations with villagers who fled the onslaught and their relatives. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) put the number of Assyrian captives at 90.... ISIS has come under increasing pressure in the area in recent days, with Syrian President Bashar Assad sending additional state forces to the front lines and Kurdish fighters and rival rebel groups also squeezing the militants. SOHR, which relies on an extensive network of contacts inside Syria, reported that 14 ISIS fighters were killed overnight in coalition airstrikes near Qamishli, close to the Turkish border.”

I'm glad Assad is sending more troops to fight ISIS rather than just the Syrian rebels who oppose him. He has chosen the right enemy. More than 14 need to be killed, though. I really hate to see groups who are downright evil win.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-reportedly-kidnaps-30-hazara-shiites-in-afghanistan-zabul-province/

ISIS kidnaps dozens in Afghanistan, official says
CBS/AP
February 24, 2015

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Gunmen in southern Afghanistan kidnapped 30 members of the Hazara ethnic community, authorities said Tuesday.

The 30 people were kidnapped from two vehicles on a major road in Zabul province, provincial Gov. Mohammad Ashraf said. He said authorities were trying to find those kidnapped, some of whom may be government officials.

Though no group immediately claimed responsibility for the attack nor demanded a ransom, deputy police chief in Zabul province told CBS News that militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) were behind the abductions, which he said took place on the Kabul-Kandahar highway on Monday night.

Deputy police chief Ghulam Jilani Farahi told CBS News' Ahmad Mukhtar over the phone that ISIS fighters "stopped two passenger buses traveling from Kandahar to Kabul and took 11 people from one bus and 20 people from the second bus."

He said all of those abducted were Hazara Shiite Muslims.

Farahi said a search and rescue operation was underway in the Zabul province.

Abdul Khaliq Ayubi, a local government official, said the gunmen all wore black clothing and black masks.

Facing ISIS, new defense chief summons "Team America"

"We contacted the Taliban through tribal elders but Taliban said they are not behind this kidnapping," Ayubi told CBS News.

He said the drivers of both buses had told authorities that the kidnappers spoke in a foreign language.

"We believe they are Daesh (ISIS)," Ayubi said, adding that he had received reports of ISIS activity in his district recently and had reported it to provincial leaders.

If it's confirmed that ISIS was behind the abductions, the bus passengers would be the first hostages held by the group in Afghanistan.

Afghan officials only confirmed in January that ISIS was operating in southern parts of the country. The following month, a drone strike killed the top recruiter for ISIS in Afghanistan, according to local officials, marking the first such attack on the extremist group in a volatile country where it has a small but growing following.

U.S. officials said a total of eight people were killed in the drone strike, but could not confirm the ISIS recruiter's death. The deputy governor of the southern Helmand province identified the recruiter as Abdul Rauf, saying he and others were killed when a drone-fired missile struck their car.

Afghan tribal leaders and Western intelligence analysts told The Associated Press in January that Abdul Rauf was the top ISIS recruiter in Helmand. Rauf had previously been held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba for his involvement with the Taliban.

The Hazara, some 9 percent of Afghanistan's population, are a largely Shiite ethnic minority in predominantly Sunni Afghanistan. The group has been targeted by the Taliban and other Sunni extremists in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.

The predominantly ethnic Pashtun Taliban persecuted the Hazara minority during their five-year rule that imposed a radical interpretation of Islamic law.



Hazara people
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hazāra (Persian: هزاره) are aPersian-speaking people who mainly live in centralAfghanistan and Pakistan. They are overwhelminglyTwelver Shia Muslims and make up the third largestethnic group in Afghanistan,[7][8][9] forming about 20% of the total population.[1][10][11]

The conventional theory is that the word Hazara derives from the Persian word forThousand (Persian: هزار‎ - hazār). It may be the translation of the Mongol word ming(or minggan), a military unit of 1000 soldiers at the time of Gengis Khan.[13][14][15]With time, the term Hazar could have been substituted for the Mongol word and now stands for the group of people.[16]

The origins of the Hazara have not been fully reconstructed. Significant inner Asian descent – in historical context Turkish and Mongolian - is impossible to rule out because the Hazara's physical attributes,[17] facial bone structures and parts of their culture and language resemble those of Mongolians and Central Asian Turks.[17] Thus, it is widely and popularly[18] believed that Hazara haveMongolian ancestry. Genetic analysis of the Hazara indicate partial Mongolian ancestry.[19]Invading Mongols and Turco-Mongols mixed with the local Iranian population, forming a distinct group. For example, Nikudari Mongols settled in what is now Afghanistan and mixed with native populations who spoke Persian.

Another popular theory proposes that Hazara are descendants of the Kushans, the ancient dwellers of Afghanistan who are believed to have built the Buddhas of Bamiyan.[citation needed] Its proponents find the location of the Hazara homeland, and the similarity in facial features of Hazara with those on frescoes and Buddha's statues in Bamiyan, suggestive.”




“Gunmen in southern Afghanistan kidnapped 30 members of the Hazara ethnic community, authorities said Tuesday. The 30 people were kidnapped from two vehicles on a major road in Zabul province, provincial Gov. Mohammad Ashraf said. He said authorities were trying to find those kidnapped, some of whom may be government officials.... Deputy police chief Ghulam Jilani Farahi told CBS News' Ahmad Mukhtar over the phone that ISIS fighters "stopped two passenger buses traveling from Kandahar to Kabul and took 11 people from one bus and 20 people from the second bus." He said all of those abducted were Hazara Shiite Muslims. Farahi said a search and rescue operation was underway in the Zabul province. Abdul Khaliq Ayubi, a local government official, said the gunmen all wore black clothing and black masks.... "We believe they are Daesh (ISIS)," Ayubi said, adding that he had received reports of ISIS activity in his district recently and had reported it to provincial leaders. If it's confirmed that ISIS was behind the abductions, the bus passengers would be the first hostages held by the group in Afghanistan. Afghan officials only confirmed in January that ISIS was operating in southern parts of the country. The following month, a drone strike killed the top recruiter for ISIS in Afghanistan, according to local officials, marking the first such attack on the extremist group in a volatile country where it has a small but growing following.... The predominantly ethnic Pashtun Taliban persecuted the Hazara minority during their five-year rule that imposed a radical interpretation of Islamic law.”

I wonder how many other nations ISIS has infiltrated and begun an attempted conquest. I would think the Taliban could fight them off. Hopefully the Afghan army with American behind them can do something.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-police-probe-drones-spotted-eiffel-tower-us-embassy-landmarks/

Mystery drones spotted over Paris landmarks
AP February 24, 2015

Photograph – PARIS, FRANCE - As a tribute for the victims of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack the lights of the Eiffel Tower were turned off for five minutes at 8pm local time on Jan. 8, 2015 in Paris, France.  

PARIS -- At least five drones flew over the Eiffel Tower, the U.S. Embassy and other Paris landmarks overnight, authorities said Tuesday. It was the most audacious of several mysterious drone over-flights around France in recent months.

An investigation is underway into who was operating the latest drones buzzing over Paris, and why. Such flights are banned over Paris skies.

The drones flew in three stages while the capital was under darkness, said Paris prosecutors' spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre. First, one was spotted above the U.S. Embassy, then one at the Eiffel Tower, and then later drones were spotted over the Louvre Museum in central Paris, the Bastille monument to the French Revolution in eastern Paris, the Montparnasse tower in southern Paris, and the Interior Ministry headquarters, she said.

A Paris police official said at least five drones were involved. Officials with the police, gendarmes and prosecutor's office said it's unclear who was behind the flights and even whether they were all coordinated. The U.S. Embassy would not comment on the incident.

A small drone crashed on the White House lawn last month, raising U.S. concern about the phenomenon. In France it is a growing worry after dozens of sightings of mystery drones over nuclear plants and military installations - and one over the presidential palace. Investigators have yet to find most of the perpetrators.

French authorities have said the drones currently present no threat, but the government is trying to find ways to counteract the devices. Some fear the drones could be spying on technology or could one day be equipped with weapons.
]
Drone operator Jean-Luc Fournier, who has consulted on French drone legislation, said authorized operators condemn such rogue flights because it casts the whole industry in a bad light.

He said such flights raise tension, with Paris already on edge after deadly terrorist attacks last month by Islamic radicals.




Eyes in the Paris sky – or armed weapons? Neither is good. Of course in this country lots of ordinary citizens are buying drones essentially as toys. That could be the origin of these flights as well. Still there have been a number of instances and they have flown over sensitive sites such as nuclear plants. I just hope it's not the Russians. They have been aggressive with submarines and fighter planes in the last several months all over Europe. They are not happy about the interest NATO and the EU has shown in the Ukrainian war.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-25-year-olds-shaping-the-supreme-court-docket/

​The 25-year-olds shaping the Supreme Court docket
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
February 24, 2015

The federal government took control of Florida resident Tony Henderson's personal gun collection more than eight years ago. On Tuesday, thanks to a group of law students, the Supreme Court will finally consider whether Henderson deserves some compensation for that property.

Henderson was a U.S. border patrol agent who in 2006 was busted for dealing small amounts of marijuana. He was sentenced to six months in jail and served his time. That, however, isn't where the punishment ended. The former officer had turned his personal gun collection over to the court during his legal proceedings, and the government kept his weapons after his conviction because felons are barred from possessing firearms.

Since the firearms -- some of them family heirlooms -- had no connection to his crime, Henderson asked the government to transfer them to a third party who could then pay him for them. His request was denied. Henderson challenged the decision in court, but representing himself, he only made it so far.

Then, a group of students from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Law found his case and offered to take it up for him.

"This is an issue, frankly, I was surprised that it hadn't been addressed before the Supreme Court," third-year law student Anna McDanal told CBS News. For one thing, multiple circuit courts have issued conflicting rulings on the matter-- a key signal the Supreme Court should weigh in.

Perhaps more importantly, the outcome could impact millions of people.

"So many crimes fall under this federal statute that prohibits possession" of firearms, McDanal said. "If it's a felony punishable by at least a year, you can't possess a firearm -- that covers a lot of ground in criminal law. The fact that the government has been essentially seizing this property and then not paying them... seems like something someone would've grasped onto earlier."

McDanal and her fellow UVA students came across Henderson's case in UVA Law School's Supreme Court clinic. The clinic, launched in 2006, gives third-year students the opportunity to handle cases seeking Supreme Court review. The students draft petitions asking the court to review their cases, draft briefs and help prepare actual arguments delivered before the court.

"They're doing things as third-years... that often people don't get to do in practice until they're many years out, maybe not until they're a partner or something in a law firm," UVA Law Professor Dan Ortiz told CBS.

"They're going up against some of the best lawyers in the country... and we beat them as often as not."

Even getting their cases to the court is impressive. Each year Americans ask the Supreme Court to hear about 7,000 cases, but it only accepts about 70. Since 2006, the UVA clinic has taken 12 cases to the court, including two this term. Of the 10 cases with results, the clinic has won six, lost three and saw mixed results in one case.

To find cases the Supreme Court will accept, the clinic's students pore through every case decided by the federal courts of appeal, keeping an eye out for conflicts among the courts. If a case with potential is available, the university clinic offers to represent the petitioner pro bono. That's how one student, Gillian Giannetti, initially identified Henderson's case.

In the subsequent term, different group of students, including McDanal, helped prepare additional briefs for Henderson. They also helped Ortiz prepare the oral arguments he'll deliver before the court on Tuesday.

Henderson's case touches on constitutional issues, such as whether the government can deprive a person of his property without due process, as well as statutory issues such as the meaning of "possession."

"What the government's view allows it to do is accomplish a forfeiture of these assets unconnected to the crime, and that's just arbitrarily increasing the punishment for the crime," Ortiz said. Henderson, he said, "pleaded guilty, he served his time in prison and now the government wants to stick him with this extra economic burden by not allowing him to... capture the economic value of his gun collection."

While most of the third-year law students are in their 20's, Ortiz said they're "old enough to have mature judgment in most cases -- but young enough at the same time to be close to real issues on the ground."

Their relative youth was an asset when researching their last case that went to the Supreme Court, which concerned a rapper posting threatening messages on Facebook.

"It was really helpful to have people who were younger than me working on the papers," Ortiz said. "They could describe Facebook to a group of mostly 70- and 80-year-olds who presumably wouldn't know too much about it unless it were explained well to them."

While the students bring a younger perspective to the law, their pro bono services are also influencing the Supreme Court's docket, Ortiz argues. Indeed, petitioners representing themselves, like Henderson was, rarely make it to the Supreme Court.

Without the dozen or so Supreme Court law school clinics across the country, "there would be, I think, an even larger emphasis on business cases than there are now," Ortiz said.




“The federal government took control of Florida resident Tony Henderson's personal gun collection more than eight years ago. On Tuesday, thanks to a group of law students, the Supreme Court will finally consider whether Henderson deserves some compensation for that property. Henderson was a U.S. border patrol agent who in 2006 was busted for dealing small amounts of marijuana. He was sentenced to six months in jail and served his time. That, however, isn't where the punishment ended. The former officer had turned his personal gun collection over to the court during his legal proceedings, and the government kept his weapons after his conviction because felons are barred from possessing firearms..... Then, a group of students from the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Law found his case and offered to take it up for him. "This is an issue, frankly, I was surprised that it hadn't been addressed before the Supreme Court," third-year law student Anna McDanal told CBS News. For one thing, multiple circuit courts have issued conflicting rulings on the matter-- a key signal the Supreme Court should weigh in. Perhaps more importantly, the outcome could impact millions of people.... The fact that the government has been essentially seizing this property and then not paying them... seems like something someone would've grasped onto earlier." McDanal and her fellow UVA students came across Henderson's case in UVA Law School's Supreme Court clinic. The clinic, launched in 2006, gives third-year students the opportunity to handle cases seeking Supreme Court review.... "They're going up against some of the best lawyers in the country... and we beat them as often as not." Even getting their cases to the court is impressive. Each year Americans ask the Supreme Court to hear about 7,000 cases, but it only accepts about 70. Since 2006, the UVA clinic has taken 12 cases to the court, including two this term. Of the 10 cases with results, the clinic has won six, lost three and saw mixed results in one case.”

“Henderson's case touches on constitutional issues, such as whether the government can deprive a person of his property without due process, as well as statutory issues such as the meaning of "possession." "What the government's view allows it to do is accomplish a forfeiture of these assets unconnected to the crime, and that's just arbitrarily increasing the punishment for the crime," Ortiz said.” This issue of police and courts essentially seizing possessions of crime suspects without having to pay for them was mentioned in the articles over the Ferguson, MO case a few months ago. People's cars can be confiscated, for instance. I went to the Internet and found an article blaming it on the USA Patriot Act, though it seems to me that confiscated cars have been sold at police auctions for several decades. Even land can be confiscated if the government or developer wants it to reuse for their own purposes. That's called Eminent Domain – when property is needed for some civic use it can be seized, but the government has to compensate the owner “fairly.” The term confiscation, from Wikipedia, means “(from the Latin confiscatio ", joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury") is a legal seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law.”

This form of punishment does not require the government to compensate the suspect and it does not have to be the action of a court when the criminal is convicted, I don't think. I hate to sound like one of those “sovereign citizens,” but that shouldn't be legal. It will be interesting indeed to see what the Supreme Court decides, and in what circumstances it will be applicable.





http://www.npr.org/2015/02/24/385462624/washington-state-county-unsure-if-it-can-take-wave-of-north-dakota-crude

Washington State County Unsure If It Can Take Wave Of North Dakota Crude
Ashley Ahearn
FEBRUARY 24, 2015

Photograph – Quinault Indian Nation President Fawn Sharp stands on the docks as tribal crabbers unload their catch. The tribe has vowed to fight the oil train-to-ship terminals proposed for Grays Harbor.
Ashley Ahearn/KUOW

Oil companies in North Dakota are looking for the fastest and cheapest way to get their product to refineries, and they've set their sights on moving more of their product by rail to the Northwest.

There are six new oil terminals proposed for Washington state. Half of them could be built in the small communities around Grays Harbor, a bay on the Pacific coast about 50 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River.

Al Carter has lived in Grays Harbor County pretty much his whole life. He served as a county commissioner for eight years. He's pro-development and pro-business. When he was in office he called himself an "infrastructure guy".

"Sewer, water, roads ... those are infrastructure things in a community that makes a community grow," Carter says. "If you build those things, then people will come to those places.

He wants to see more businesses set up shop in Grays Harbor County, which has an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent, more than four percentage points higher than the state average. The county has struggled since the lumber industry contracted in the 1970s and 1980s.

Carter isn't against oil coming through his community — for him, it's an issue of balance and scale.

Three oil terminals are proposed to be built in Grays Harbor. At maximum capacity, more than 700 ships and barges would come in and out each year, while eight or more trains would roll through town each day, delivering oil to those ships.

"For me, the biggest thing is, I don't think any one thing should dominate the whole landscape. That much oil — all we're going to be is an oil terminal," Carter says. "Nothing else is going to come here, nobody else is going to want to come here. There won't be any room for anything else."

In the short term, constructing the terminals would create hundreds of jobs. Longer term, according to research from the oil companies, the terminals would lead to about 150 jobs.

Paul Queary is a spokesperson for Westway Terminals and Imperium Renewables — two of the three companies that want to build here, which say they are committed to the highest levels of public safety and environmental protection.

"They will help support the existing refinery jobs elsewhere in Washingto, and they will bring domestically produced oil to U.S. refineries and help increase U.S. energy independence," Queary says.

Environmentalists say the terminals proposed for the Northwest aren't just being built to move oil to U.S. refineries — they also could export crude from the Canadian oil sands. Right now, it's illegal to export U.S. crude oil.

Oil prices have been dropping, but industry experts say that more infrastructure — including pipelines, railroads and terminals — still are needed to catch up with the North American oil boom.

"The Northwest is the most likely market for Bakken crude or North Dakota crude to go to," says Tom Kloza, an energy analyst for Oil Price Information Service.

He says that as the Northwest gets less oil from Alaska, refineries here need to make up the difference with North Dakota crude.

"Whether it's the most hospitable is going to depend on the way the local communities and regulators looked at the environmental consequences," Kloza says.

The Quinault Indian Nation takes up the northwestern corner of the county, and about a fifth of the tribe's 2,900 members make their living from fishing and crabbing.

They unload freshly caught salmon, Dungeness crab and razor clams at their docks at the mouth of Grays Harbor, and are worried about what an oil train derailment or a ship accident could do to their way of life.

The Quinault have joined with the local fishing industry groups and environmentalists in opposition to the Grays Harbor oil terminals, but Fawn Sharp, president of the tribe, says the Quinault aren't anti-jobs.

"We're simply anti making shortsighted, narrow decisions," Sharp says. "Let's look at the science, let's look at the history and culture of the impacts, and make a good public policy decision."

She sees the oil terminals as a symptom of a much bigger problem that threatens her people: climate change. Last year, the ocean flooded into the Quinault's tribal village, forcing a state of emergency. The glacier that used to feed the Quinault River is gone.
State agencies are in the process of conducting the environmental review for the terminals.




“Oil companies in North Dakota are looking for the fastest and cheapest way to get their product to refineries, and they've set their sights on moving more of their product by rail to the Northwest. There are six new oil terminals proposed for Washington state. Half of them could be built in the small communities around Grays Harbor, a bay on the Pacific coast about 50 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River.... He wants to see more businesses set up shop in Grays Harbor County, which has an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent, more than four percentage points higher than the state average. The county has struggled since the lumber industry contracted in the 1970s and 1980s. Carter isn't against oil coming through his community — for him, it's an issue of balance and scale.... Three oil terminals are proposed to be built in Grays Harbor. At maximum capacity, more than 700 ships and barges would come in and out each year, while eight or more trains would roll through town each day, delivering oil to those ships. "For me, the biggest thing is, I don't think any one thing should dominate the whole landscape. That much oil — all we're going to be is an oil terminal," Carter says.... "They will help support the existing refinery jobs elsewhere in Washingto, and they will bring domestically produced oil to U.S. refineries and help increase U.S. energy independence," Queary says. Environmentalists say the terminals proposed for the Northwest aren't just being built to move oil to U.S. refineries — they also could export crude from the Canadian oil sands. Right now, it's illegal to export U.S. crude oil.... "Whether it's the most hospitable is going to depend on the way the local communities and regulators looked at the environmental consequences," Kloza says. The Quinault Indian Nation takes up the northwestern corner of the county, and about a fifth of the tribe's 2,900 members make their living from fishing and crabbing.... Fawn Sharp, president of the tribe, says the Quinault aren't anti-jobs. "We're simply anti making shortsighted, narrow decisions," Sharp says. "Let's look at the science, let's look at the history and culture of the impacts, and make a good public policy decision."

“Longer term, according to research from the oil companies, the terminals would lead to about 150 jobs.” 150 oil jobs at the expense of other industries including fishing doesn't make sense, and it hasn't been more than 15 years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The way I feel every time I see an animal coated with oil and generally dying is hard to bear. Then more recently came the spill in Louisiana. That was only five years ago, and oil can still be found in the marshes and under the surface of the sand which has been “cleaned.” The last I heard BP was busily shifting blame to another company that was involved so they wouldn't have to pay the total cost. National Geographic has a great web page on the subject: go to http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/gulf-oil-spill-news/ to see that. If you want to see a funny and poignant movie go to the library and check out “Local Hero,” a story of a tiny Scottish island where oil has been discovered. Burt Lancaster plays the lead role, a representative of the oil company. If all conflict stories about environmental issues could end so well.