Monday, March 2, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/civil-servant-protection-system-could-keep-problematic-government-employees-from-being-fired/

Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
CBS NEWS
March 2, 2015

In the private sector, if you're caught viewing porn on company time or intimidating a co-worker, you'd probably be fired immediately; not so if you're a federal employee.

A CBS News investigation looks at how hard it is for the U.S. government to discipline or fire employees who behave badly. With examples ranging from extravagant to explicit, civil service rules meant to protect public workers from political pressure may be backfiring, and costing you big, reports CBS News correspondent Don Dahler.

At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), red tape is preventing the removal of a top level employee accused of viewing porn two to six hours a day while at work, since 2010. Even though investigators found 7,000 pornographic files on his computer and even caught him watching porn, he remains on the payroll.

At a Congressional hearing, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy was asked why she hadn't fired the employee and said, "I actually have to work through the administrative process, as you know."

The administrative process meant to prevent against politically motivated firings is the civil servant protection system. The rules give employees the right to appeal a termination, a process that can take up two years.

"There is a big difference between trying to protect against that and what we have today," Partnership for Public Service president and CEO Max Stier said.

He said those rules make it nearly impossible to fire poor performers or problematic employees, even when they've committed egregious violations.

"Many managers would like to get rid of problem employees and find that they have to go through a challenging process," Stier said.

A CBS News analysis of cases under review by the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), an appeals board for federal workers, found other instances of employees who had committed seemingly fireable offenses who were later reinstated to their jobs, often with back pay and interest.

Highly publicized cases are no exception.

Five years ago, the General Services Administration (GSA) spent more than $800,000 on a lavish conference in Las Vegas. They were served 1,000 sushi rolls costing $7 each and a clown and mind reader were hired for entertainment. Two managers were initially fired but got their jobs back after the MSPB reversed the decision.

At a Congressional hearing in 2012, Chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Jason Chaffetz asked GSA Chief of Staff Mike Robertson what it takes to be fired from the GSA.

"There is a long-standing due process that career employees are entitled to as part of their employment," Robertson said. "We have begun that process, among other disciplinary actions, for several individuals that were involved in the planning and execution of this conference."

The appeals board found that while the conference's level of extravagance has "no place in government," the GSA did not convincingly prove that the two managers "knew or had reason to know of these ill-advised planning and purchasing decisions." The GSA was ordered to "cancel the appellants removals" and give them back pay plus interest. Meanwhile, the organizer of the convention was never technically fired. He was allowed to retire.

Firing belligerent or hostile workers is difficult, too. One former manager told CBS News he tried for more than a year to fire an employee who was intimidating co-workers and superiors, at one point even chasing a manager down the hall.

Upset about being reprimanded, the employee sent him numerous menacing emails, including one that read: "I can stand over you to [sic]. I am 6 foot 3 inches and I weigh 265, and I am not backing down. ... And by the way, I do know where you live."

Taking into consider administrative leave and the general costs of the procedure itself, Stier said, "There is no question that taxpayers are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, in a conservative estimate. They are losing more than that because they are losing the ability to get the very best out of government."

Congressman Chaffetz hopes to change that.

"We're going to pass a series of pieces of legislation that deal with some of these specific things, like pornography, but, at some point, it's just common decency and a recognition that if you're not doing your job and you're creating a hostile work environment, you gotta go," he said.

On average, about 6,000 terminations are appealed each year. About half of those are related to misconduct and poor performance.




“With examples ranging from extravagant to explicit, civil service rules meant to protect public workers from political pressure may be backfiring, and costing you big, reports CBS News correspondent Don Dahler. At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), red tape is preventing the removal of a top level employee accused of viewing porn two to six hours a day while at work, since 2010. Even though investigators found 7,000 pornographic files on his computer and even caught him watching porn, he remains on the payroll. At a Congressional hearing, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy was asked why she hadn't fired the employee and said, "I actually have to work through the administrative process, as you know.".... A CBS News analysis of cases under review by the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), an appeals board for federal workers, found other instances of employees who had committed seemingly fireable offenses who were later reinstated to their jobs, often with back pay and interest.... "There is a long-standing due process that career employees are entitled to as part of their employment," Robertson said. "We have begun that process, among other disciplinary actions, for several individuals that were involved in the planning and execution of this conference." The appeals board found that while the conference's level of extravagance has "no place in government," the GSA did not convincingly prove that the two managers "knew or had reason to know of these ill-advised planning and purchasing decisions." The GSA was ordered to "cancel the appellants removals" and give them back pay plus interest. Meanwhile, the organizer of the convention was never technically fired. He was allowed to retire.... Taking into consider administrative leave and the general costs of the procedure itself, Stier said, "There is no question that taxpayers are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, in a conservative estimate. They are losing more than that because they are losing the ability to get the very best out of government." Congressman Chaffetz hopes to change that. "We're going to pass a series of pieces of legislation that deal with some of these specific things, like pornography, but, at some point, it's just common decency and a recognition that if you're not doing your job and you're creating a hostile work environment, you gotta go," he said. On average, about 6,000 terminations are appealed each year. About half of those are related to misconduct and poor performance.”

I don't know how many of you are my age, but I remember a painful and embarrassing incident from Jimmy Carter's presidency. He was walking through a government office and came across a man sitting with his feet up on his desk and definitely not working, who failed to stand up in Carter's presence. Not only was he lazy, he was insolent. Carter was understandably angry and ordered him to stand up. The man just sat there. Carter did try to get him fired for that, but was unable to.

I can understand the rules as they are written, however, because so often the new administration fires large numbers merely on the basis of their political party affiliation. The laws could be rewritten to allow firing for cause, it seems to me, though. Making government as difficult to work in as that is not smart. Some conservative people have made the claim that a dictatorship may be unfair to the opposite party, but is “more efficient.” Our government definitely is NOT efficient. On the other hand, I wouldn't scrap our system for a dictatorship. The beauty of the US lies in its bone structure – the Constitution.







http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-intruder-dressed-as-construction-worker-arrested/

White House intruder arrested
CBS NEWS
March 2, 2015

An unidentified man tried to enter the White House grounds early Monday morning and was arrested, officials say.

Dressed as a construction worker, the man tried to get in through the gate on Pennsylvania Avenue near East Executive Avenue at around 6:45 a.m. ET, Brian Leary, spokesman with U.S. Secret Service, told CBS News correspondent Major Garrett.

The man was stopped and questioned by uniform division personnel, and he then became combative, officials said.

He was arrested and is being processed.

So far, few biographical details about the intruder have been released.

The White House compound was locked down when the situation began, but that order has since been lifted. Pennsylvania Avenue is operating normally

The Secret Service dealt with an embarrassing White House intruder last year, who made it all the way to Mr. Obama's residence before he was nabbed.




“An unidentified man tried to enter the White House grounds early Monday morning and was arrested, officials say. Dressed as a construction worker, the man tried to get in through the gate on Pennsylvania Avenue near East Executive Avenue at around 6:45 a.m. ET, Brian Leary, spokesman with U.S. Secret Service, told CBS News correspondent Major Garrett. The man was stopped and questioned by uniform division personnel, and he then became combative, officials said. He was arrested and is being processed. So far, few biographical details about the intruder have been released.” The good news here is that the intruder was apprehended before he do any harm, and I'm sure is being interrogated about his background and intentions. I do hope that when the president is no longer in office he will have some federal protection. There have been too many of these incidents now, and I have no doubt that some of them may have intended to harm Obama.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iraq-offensive-underway-to-retake-tikrit-from-isis/

Iraq launches offensive to reclaim ISIS ground
AP  March 2, 2015

Photograph – Members of the Iraqi security forces heading from the city of Samarra north of Baghdad drive towards al-Dawr area south of Tikrit to launch an assault against ISIS militants, Feb. 28, 2015.  GETTY

BAGHDAD -- Backed by allied Shiite and Sunni fighters, Iraqi security forces on Monday began a large-scale military operation to recapture Saddam Hussein's hometown from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) extremists, state TV said, a major step in a campaign to reclaim a large swath of territory in northern Iraq controlled by the militants.

The city of Tikrit, some 80 miles north of Baghdad, fell into the hands of ISIS last summer along with the country's second-largest city of Mosul and other areas in the country's Sunni heartland after the collapse of national security forces. Tikrit is one of the largest cities held by ISIS and sits on the road to Mosul.

Security forces have so far been unable to retake Tikrit, but momentum has begun to shift after soldiers, backed by airstrikes from a U.S.-led coalition, recently took back the nearby refinery town of Beiji. Any operation to take Mosul likely would require Iraq to seize Tikrit first because of its strategic location for military enforcements.

Al-Iraqiya television said that the forces were attacking Tikrit from different directions, backed by artillery and airstrikes by Iraqi fighter jets. It said the militants were dislodged from some areas outside the city, but gave no details.

There were unconfirmed reports, meanwhile, that fighting had also escalated in the region immediately to the west of Mosul itself, where Kurdish peshmerga fighters were battling ISIS militants in control of the sprawling city.

Iraq is bitterly divided between minority Sunnis, who were an important base of support for Saddam, and the Shiite majority. The cooperation between Shiite and Sunni fighters in Monday's operation was an important development in the battle against ISIS, though the presence of Shiite forces in the Sunni area risks prompting a backlash in the future.

Hours ahead of the operation, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a Shiite, called on Sunni tribal fighters to abandon the extremist group, offering what he described as "the last chance" and promising them a pardon.

"I call upon those who have been misled or committed a mistake to lay down arms and join their people and security forces in order to liberate their cities," al-Abadi said Sunday during a news conference in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Al-Abadi offered what he called "the last chance" for Sunni tribal fighters, promising them a pardon. "The city will soon return to its people," he added.

His comments appeared to be targeting former members of Iraq's outlawed Baath party, loyalists to Saddam, who joined ISIS during its offensive, as well as other Sunnis who were dissatisfied with Baghdad's Shiite-led government.

Saddam, the country's longtime ruler, was ousted in 2003 by U.S. forces and later executed. Tikrit frequently saw attacks on U.S. forces during the American occupation of the country.




“Backed by allied Shiite and Sunni fighters, Iraqi security forces on Monday began a large-scale military operation to recapture Saddam Hussein's hometown from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) extremists, state TV said, a major step in a campaign to reclaim a large swath of territory in northern Iraq controlled by the militants.... Security forces have so far been unable to retake Tikrit, but momentum has begun to shift after soldiers, backed by airstrikes from a U.S.-led coalition, recently took back the nearby refinery town of Beiji. Any operation to take Mosul likely would require Iraq to seize Tikrit first because of its strategic location for military enforcements.... Iraq is bitterly divided between minority Sunnis, who were an important base of support for Saddam, and the Shiite majority. The cooperation between Shiite and Sunni fighters in Monday's operation was an important development in the battle against ISIS, though the presence of Shiite forces in the Sunni area risks prompting a backlash in the future. Hours ahead of the operation, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a Shiite, called on Sunni tribal fighters to abandon the extremist group, offering what he described as "the last chance" and promising them a pardon.... His comments appeared to be targeting former members of Iraq's outlawed Baath party, loyalists to Saddam, who joined ISIS during its offensive, as well as other Sunnis who were dissatisfied with Baghdad's Shiite-led government.”

In any large modern country the various ethnic groups desperately need to stop fighting each other so the national government can set up a secure and stable system based on representation for more than one ethnic group or political philosophy. Everybody needs a share so that all the citizens can be fairly treated. Definitely no group should be jailed, disenfranchised or killed over their group membership. The government shouldn't go through a total breakdown or civil war every time there is a need for an election. Hopefully that is beginning to happen in Iraq.




http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obamacare-faces-toughest-test-supreme-court-challenge-n315231

Obamacare Faces Toughest Test in Supreme Court Challenge
BY PETE WILLIAMS
March 2, 2015

The Supreme Court is preparing to hear a challenge to Barack Obama's signature healthcare policy that could deal it a crippling blow, if not a fatal one.

The case comes before the justices on Wednesday, nearly three years after the Supreme Court saved Obamacare during a legal battle at the law's inception.

The health insurance industry warns that if the challengers succeed this time, the Affordable Care Act would enter a "death spiral" — with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.

Here's the question the justices must answer: who qualifies for federal subsidies that lower the cost of health insurance premiums?

More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange — HealthCare.Gov — depend on the subsidies, which reduce their premiums an average of 72 percent, amounting to almost $270 a month.

"The Affordable Care Act saved my life," says David Tedrow of Durham, North Carolina, who was forced to close his retail business when non-alcoholic liver disease left him bedridden.

"My liver was ceasing to function, and I was dying."

Crucial to him, he says, was the launch of Obamacare and the federal subsidy that came with it, allowing him to afford an insurance policy that would cover the cost of a liver transplant.

"Really, honestly, you couldn't find a clearer case"

Tedrow joined a friend-of-court brief urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Obama administration.

But the challengers cite a phrase in the Affordable Care Act statute passed by Congress. They argue that the text makes subsidies available only to insurance customers who bought their policies through "an exchange established by the state" where the policyholders live.

If the challengers prevail, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange would lose their subsidies. The stakes are high, because only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.

"Really, honestly, you couldn't find a clearer case," says Michael Carvin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer representing the challengers. He says Congress designed the law to push reluctant states to set up their own health insurance marketplaces.

"Congress wanted to provide an incentive to the states to take on the very politically unpopular and logistically difficult task of creating these exchanges."

In response, the Obama Justice Department urges the Supreme Court to look at the entire 900-plus pages of the Affordable Care Act, not just a single phrase.

Under the act, if a state is unable or unwilling to launch its own exchange, then the federal government steps in with an exchange set up by the Department of Health and Human Services.

As a legal matter, the government argues, an exchange set up by HHS for a particular state qualifies as an exchange "established by the state."

What's more, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli contends in the government's legal brief, Congress "did not engage the states in a high-stakes game of chicken" but instead designed Obamacare to apply to people in every state.

Among the law's provisions are requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance. Congress knew that those components of the health care system would not work, Verrilli says, if the subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of people were available only on state exchanges.

A brief filed by 22 states — some with their own exchanges, some without — said Congress could not have intended to give them the authority to rely on the federal exchange while depriving their residents of the benefits of using it.

Friend-of-court briefs have piled up, offering different assessments of what a victory for the challenges would mean.

"It's very important for the court to get into this dispute as soon as possible to stop that spigot from the federal treasury."

"We will not mince words," said the representatives from hospital industry in a filing predicting "a disaster for millions of lower-and-middle income Americans."

Health insurance companies warn that the effect of a loss for the government "would make the situation worse than it was before Congress acted."

On the other side, Consumers' Research, a non-profit group aligned with the law's opponents, says the court's duty "is to say what the law is, not to determine what it should be to promote good consequences or to avoid ill consequences."

And says Michael Carvin, the lawyer representing the challengers, "There's billions of dollars of federal money literally heading out every month based on what we view as an incorrect interpretation of the law.

"So it's very important for the court to get into this dispute as soon as possible to stop that spigot from the federal treasury."

A decision is expected by the time the Supreme Court's term ends in late June.




“The Supreme Court is preparing to hear a challenge to Barack Obama's signature healthcare policy that could deal it a crippling blow, if not a fatal one. The case comes before the justices on Wednesday, nearly three years after the Supreme Court saved Obamacare during a legal battle at the law's inception. The health insurance industry warns that if the challengers succeed this time, the Affordable Care Act would enter a "death spiral" — with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.... More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange — HealthCare.Gov — depend on the subsidies, which reduce their premiums an average of 72 percent, amounting to almost $270 a month. "The Affordable Care Act saved my life," says David Tedrow of Durham, North Carolina, who was forced to close his retail business when non-alcoholic liver disease left him bedridden.... But the challengers cite a phrase in the Affordable Care Act statute passed by Congress. They argue that the text makes subsidies available only to insurance customers who bought their policies through "an exchange established by the state" where the policyholders live. If the challengers prevail, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange would lose their subsidies. The stakes are high, because only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.... "Congress wanted to provide an incentive to the states to take on the very politically unpopular and logistically difficult task of creating these exchanges." In response, the Obama Justice Department urges the Supreme Court to look at the entire 900-plus pages of the Affordable Care Act, not just a single phrase. Under the act, if a state is unable or unwilling to launch its own exchange, then the federal government steps in with an exchange set up by the Department of Health and Human Services. As a legal matter, the government argues, an exchange set up by HHS for a particular state qualifies as an exchange "established by the state."... Congress "did not engage the states in a high-stakes game of chicken" but instead designed Obamacare to apply to people in every state. Among the law's provisions are requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance. Congress knew that those components of the health care system would not work, Verrilli says, if the subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of people were available only on state exchanges.... "We will not mince words," said the representatives from hospital industry in a filing predicting "a disaster for millions of lower-and-middle income Americans." Health insurance companies warn that the effect of a loss for the government "would make the situation worse than it was before Congress acted." On the other side, Consumers' Research, a non-profit group aligned with the law's opponents, says the court's duty "is to say what the law is, not to determine what it should be to promote good consequences or to avoid ill consequences." And says Michael Carvin, the lawyer representing the challengers, "There's billions of dollars of federal money literally heading out every month based on what we view as an incorrect interpretation of the law.”

This plan is not working partly because the states were allowed legally to opt out on their part in the system – to set up a state marketplace. I have lived in the South all my life, but I have never thought that the old “states' rights” issue was a good thing. It has been divisive in innumerable ways. I don't want to live in a country that is fragmented and full of discord. Perhaps the North should have allowed the South to secede in the 1850's. The North could have kept it's factories for processing cotton and the North could have grown the cotton. There would undoubtedly have been war between the two separate nations, of course, based on slavery, trade and other social and economic issues. Our disjointed legislative process nowadays is mainly due to that, I think. I hope the Supreme Court makes a positive and insightful statement on this matter, because the Republicans are again merely being obstructionist and not interested at all in “good vs evil.” They just aren't interested in solving social problems. All they want is more money.





http://www.today.com/health/temperature-contagion-seeing-someone-shiver-can-make-you-feel-cold-1D80427843

Cold is contagious: Seeing someone shiver may give you chills
By Lisa FlamTODAY
Jan. 15, 2015

Can simply looking at somebody who is cold leave us reaching for a sweater and scarf for ourselves?

Researchers from the University of Sussex found that people who watched videos of actors putting their hands in cold water saw their own body temperature drop, evidence of “temperature contagion.”

Neuropsychiatrist Dr. Neil Harrison, the lead researcher, said that this kind of unconscious change in the body may help people have empathy and live among each other.

“Humans are profoundly social creatures and much of humans' success results from our ability to work together in complex communities —this would be hard to do if we were not able to rapidly empathize with each other and predict one another's thoughts, feelings and motivations,” Harrison said in the study. 

In the study, published recently in the journal PLOS One, 36 volunteers watched videos of actors putting their hands into warm or cold water and the temperature of their hands was measured. The volunteers’ hands were significantly colder when they watched the videos involving cold water; there was no change during the warm-water videos, according to ScienceDaily.

Harrison said this could be because the warm-water videos were “less potent,” showing steam rising just at the start of the clips, while the cold-water videos showed blocks of ice for the duration.

“There is also some evidence to suggest that people may be more sensitive to others appearing cold than hot," he said.

On TODAY Thursday, Savannah Guthrie told Al Roker that when he and Dylan Dreyer are outside talking about the winter weather — which in New York Thursday was a brisk 28 degrees Fahrenheit — “we really feel your pain.”

Scarf up! Keeping this body part warm may help ward off a cold




"Neuropsychiatrist Dr. Neil Harrison, the lead researcher, said that this kind of unconscious change in the body may help people have empathy and live among each other. “Humans are profoundly social creatures and much of humans' success results from our ability to work together in complex communities —this would be hard to do if we were not able to rapidly empathize with each other and predict one another's thoughts, feelings and motivations,” Harrison said in the study. … In the study, published recently in the journal PLOS One, 36 volunteers watched videos of actors putting their hands into warm or cold water and the temperature of their hands was measured. The volunteers’ hands were significantly colder when they watched the videos involving cold water; there was no change during the warm-water videos, according to ScienceDaily.”

Well, this article does make a great deal of sense to me, as humans during the Ice Ages may have suffered as much as we would under that condition. In modern times people who have more body fat and muscle are less sensitive to cold. It is possible to become acclimated to cold or heat, however, so maybe the Neanderthals – who had a higher body weight – were genetically adapted to cold weather. I think this characteristic of empathy in regard to coldness is probably important for a creature that lives in a temperate (changeable) or northern zone for the survival of the largest number of members.

A friend of mine from China told me, also, that as a kind of discipline she regularly tried to wait as long as she could each year before she got out her heavy coat, and both China and Siberia have very cold winters. People toughening themselves up to deal with more cold temperatures could be a high survival characteristic there, and groups of primitive people walking around with just some furs to keep themselves warm would probably survive better as a group if they paid attention the plight of others. Humans huddle together to share their body heat if they have to, and also if the day is terribly cold, the whole group might decide to go into their cave and light a fire rather than continuing to look for a nice mammoth. If the “tough” members in any group soldier on and ignore others there may be more deaths to influenza among the group, and more interpersonal discord. There is a point at which common sense rules the day.