Thursday, April 9, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/very-disturbing-charges-vs-secret-service-supervisor/

"Very disturbing" charges vs. Secret Service supervisor
CBS/AP
April 9, 2015

WASHINGTON -- The Secret Service has placed a high-ranking supervisor on administrative leave and suspended the supervisor's security clearance after what it called "allegations of misconduct and potential criminal activity."

Spokesman Brian Leary said Wednesday that the incident was first reported to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility on April 2, after which inspectors conducted corroborative interviews. Director Joseph Clancy was informed the same day, and the employee was placed on leave.

Leary said the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general is now investigating the incident.

The spokesman would not provide details of the allegations, but said the Secret Service takes them "extremely seriously."

In a statement provided to CBS News, Clancy said, "The Secret Service is an agency that demands that our employees conduct themselves with the highest level of integrity. These allegations as reported are very disturbing. Any threats or violence that endangers our employees in the workplace is unacceptable and will not be tolerated."

The agent in question was reportedly one of the first officials Clancy promoted when he took control of the department in October, notes CBS News correspondent Bill Plante.

New leadership was supposed to clean up the Secret Service but if true, these accusations only add to other allegations of misconduct, Plante says.

The Washington Post reports that "a female employee accused the supervisor of assaulting her after-hours at agency headquarters last week."

The Post says she alleges "that Xavier Morales, a manager in the security clearance division, made unwanted sexual advances and grabbed her on the night of March 31 after they returned to the office from a party at a downtown restaurant, according to two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the probe."

The newspaper cites two people briefed on her complaint as saying she alleges that, in the office after the party, "Morales tried to kiss her and grabbed her arms when she resisted. ... The woman alleged that the two scuffled until Morales relented."

The Post says Morales, through an agency spokesperson, declined to comment.

The alleged incident is the latest black eye for the agency assigned to protect the nation's president and his family.

The inspector general is already investigating a March 4 episode in which two high-ranking agency officials are accused of driving into a secure area at the White House without authorization.

The House Oversight Committee is also trying to get to the bottom of allegations that those agents had been drinking when they drove into the area. The agents were accused of nudging a construction barrier with their vehicle as they intruded during an investigation of a suspicious item.




“Spokesman Brian Leary said Wednesday that the incident was first reported to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility on April 2, after which inspectors conducted corroborative interviews. Director Joseph Clancy was informed the same day, and the employee was placed on leave. Leary said the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general is now investigating the incident. The spokesman would not provide details of the allegations, but said the Secret Service takes them "extremely seriously." …. The Washington Post reports that "a female employee accused the supervisor of assaulting her after-hours at agency headquarters last week." The Post says she alleges "that Xavier Morales, a manager in the security clearance division, made unwanted sexual advances and grabbed her on the night of March 31 after they returned to the office from a party at a downtown restaurant, according to two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the probe." The newspaper cites two people briefed on her complaint as saying she alleges that, in the office after the party, "Morales tried to kiss her and grabbed her arms when she resisted. ... The woman alleged that the two scuffled until Morales relented." The Post says Morales, through an agency spokesperson, declined to comment.”

This is one more embarrassment for the Secret Service. This is also of a more serious nature than some of the others. The worst two cases involved drunken agents who in the first event hired street prostitutes and got so loud and boisterous that the police were called on them. In another case an agent was passed out from drinking in the hotel hallway. Then there is the case of the door alarm that had been turned off at a White House administrator's orders because it was too noisy. Unfortunately a dangerous criminal then broke in, apparently looking for the President, who wasn't there. Another Secret Service Agent saw him in a first floor room and tackled him, bringing him under control. I wonder if there is anyone who is their superior in the White House to give orders and see that rules are obeyed.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/other-officers-conduct-under-scrutiny-in-s-c-shooting/

Other officers' conduct under scrutiny in S.C. shooting
By MADISON GRAY CBS NEWS
April 9, 2015

Video – Brother of man killed by S.C. police officer speaks out

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. -- As a now-fired North Charleston police officer sits behind bars, facing murder charges for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, South Carolina law enforcement officials told CBS News the conduct of other police personnel is also being investigated.

A cell phone video of the shooting surfaced Tuesday. It shows Michael Slager, who is white, firing his gun eight times at Walter Scott, a black man, as Scott ran away.

Slager claimed the shooting was in self-defense and that Scott, whom he had pulled over for a broken tail light, tried to grab his stun gun.

Slager was charged with murder Tuesday. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey announced Wednesday that Slager had been fired.

An incident report obtained by CBS News said up to seven other police officers arrived at the scene within minutes of Saturday's shooting, beginning about 9:30 a.m.

A law enforcement source close to the investigation told CBS News, "We are interviewing everyone at the scene including all of the officers."

On the video, only one other police officer can be seen, identified in the incident report as Officer Clarence Habersham. In the report, Habersham did not describe Slager's actions, but said that he gave aid to Scott and tried to give directions to the scene.

There is no evidence on the video that Habersham, or anyone else, administered CPR to Scott.

Summey told demonstrators on Wednesday that he did not know if the other officers will be disciplined. Police Chief Eddie Driggers declined to answer any questions about them, citing the ongoing investigation being conducted by South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED).

An autopsy performed Sunday by the Charleston County Coroner's Office determined Scott died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the back, CBS affiliate WCSC reported. His death was ruled a homicide, according to coroner Rae Wooten.

Scott's family said his funeral will be held on Saturday in Summervile, N.C.

"I thought that my brother was gunned down like an animal," Anthony Scott, the victim's brother, said. "It was just unbelievable to me to see that."

Meanwhile, state prosecutors announced they will pursue an indictment against Slager. Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said she will be working with SLED on the case, WCSC reported.

In a statement, Wilson said she had met face-to-face with Scott's family and spoken with their attorneys regularly over the past few days.

"This is a very difficult time for them, but they have acted and reacted with dignity and grace," Wilson said."We are grateful for their patience, understanding and cooperation with us.

Slager is being held without bail. If convicted, the five-year police veteran could face the death penalty. WCSC reported that attorney Andy Savage will represent Slager, after the former officer's first lawyer dropped him.

"As we focus in on the facts, we will probably have more to say, but it is far too early for us to be saying what we think," Savage said in a statement. "Slager's previous counsel fell into that trap and we have no intention of doing our client further harm."




“On the video, only one other police officer can be seen, identified in the incident report as Officer Clarence Habersham. In the report, Habersham did not describe Slager's actions, but said that he gave aid to Scott and tried to give directions to the scene. There is no evidence on the video that Habersham, or anyone else, administered CPR to Scott. …. In a statement, Wilson said she had met face-to-face with Scott's family and spoken with their attorneys regularly over the past few days. "This is a very difficult time for them, but they have acted and reacted with dignity and grace," Wilson said."We are grateful for their patience, understanding and cooperation with us.”

This failure on the part of police to give aid has come up in other police killings – the “chokehold” case in NYC and the shooting in Ferguson, MO. Police need to attempt resuscitation or other first aid even if the downed man is a suspect. His conviction is supposed to be done by a jury and judge, not by a police officer. The lack of aid is, if not an assault in itself, at the very least pure neglect.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-searching-for-methane-source-in-southwest/

Mysterious methane mass hovering over Southwest
AP April 9, 2015

Graphics – The Four Corners area (red) is the major U.S. hot spot for methane emissions in this map showing how much emissions varied from average background concentrations from 2003-2009 (dark colors are lower than average; lighter colors are higher).  NASA/JPL-CALTECH/UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Scientists are working to pinpoint the source of a giant mass of methane hanging over the southwestern U.S., which a study found to be the country's largest concentration of the greenhouse gas.

The report that revealed the methane hot spot over the Four Corners region - where Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona meet - was released last year.

Now, scientists from the University of Colorado, the University of Michigan, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA are conducting a monthlong study to figure out exactly where it came from.

The answer could help reduce methane emissions that contribute to global warming. Here are some key things to know:

HOT SPOT

Last year's study by NASA and the University of Michigan was based on images from a European satellite captured between 2003 and 2009. They showed the methane hot spot as a red blip over the area, which is about half the size of Connecticut.

The study found the concentration of methane detected there would trap more heat in the atmosphere than all the carbon dioxide produced each year in Sweden.

Methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but it's far more potent for capturing heat in the short term.

POSSIBLE SOURCES

Methane occurs naturally and also is emitted by landfills and the agricultural and oil and natural gas industries.

One possible source of the hot spot is methane released from the region's coal deposits.

The releases can happen naturally, especially where coal seams reach the earth's surface. They also occur deliberately when energy companies extract methane - the primary component of natural gas - from coal beds.

The region is home to the San Juan Basin, North America's most productive area coal bed methane extraction area.

Methane also is released by coal mining and oil and gas drilling systems, and cattle produce large amounts of the gas. Scientists can pinpoint the kind of methane created by fossil fuels by looking for the presence of associated hydrocarbons.

HEALTH EFFECTS

The methane emissions pose no direct safety or health risks for Four Corners residents, although the hot spot does factor into overall global warming.

Also, methane emitted from traditional oil and gas operations usually is accompanied by hydrocarbon emissions that can create ozone, a pollutant that leads to smog and is linked to asthma and respiratory illness.

INVESTIGATING THE MYSTERY

For the next month, scientists based in Durango will fly in planes with a variety of instruments that can sense methane in the San Juan Basin. Crews in vans will follow up on their leads on the ground.

The European satellite that captured the hot spot is no longer in use, but Japan's GOSAT satellite plans to focus in on the Four Corners when it passes over the area.

It's possible methane levels over the Four Corners have changed since 2009, said Gabrielle Petron, a scientist at the University of Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences who is working on the latest study. Coal bed methane operations have declined since then, but oil production has increased.




“The report that revealed the methane hot spot over the Four Corners region - where Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona meet - was released last year. Now, scientists from the University of Colorado, the University of Michigan, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA are conducting a monthlong study to figure out exactly where it came from. …. Last year's study by NASA and the University of Michigan was based on images from a European satellite captured between 2003 and 2009. They showed the methane hot spot as a red blip over the area, which is about half the size of Connecticut. The study found the concentration of methane detected there would trap more heat in the atmosphere than all the carbon dioxide produced each year in Sweden. …. The releases can happen naturally, especially where coal seams reach the earth's surface. They also occur deliberately when energy companies extract methane - the primary component of natural gas - from coal beds. The region is home to the San Juan Basin, North America's most productive area coal bed methane extraction area. …. It's possible methane levels over the Four Corners have changed since 2009, said Gabrielle Petron, a scientist at the University of Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences who is working on the latest study. Coal bed methane operations have declined since then, but oil production has increased.”

Oklahoma has been in the news a couple of times this year for fairly small but much more frequent earthquakes than in past years, which is thought to be related to fracking activities. Maybe fracking is the cause of this methane release as well. Of course there are also large numbers of cattle being raised there. This is a very discouraging report, since oil and coal extraction and thousands of cattle will not go away. Business is business. It has been suggested that we should stop eating red meat. I'm guilty there. I like a good hamburger or steak.








http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/opinions/cevallos-female-sterilization/index.html

Is female sterilization OK or creepy?
By Danny Cevallos, CNN Legal Analyst
Thu April 9, 2015

Video – Reports: Nashville prosecutor suggested sterilization

Danny Cevallos: Present-day sterilization plea deals are voluntary and unlike creepy antiquated practices

(CNN)Recently, Nashville's district attorney banned prosecutors from offering female sterilization in plea deals. Believe it or not, Nashville prosecutors have offered this option four times in the past five years.

There has been public outrage at the notion that a defendant in America in 2015 would be offered a choice of sterilization as part of a plea deal.

Except, it happens all the time.

Some have claimed this practice "evokes a dark corner of American history" where the mentally ill or "deficient" were forced to undergo sterilization.

Yeah, that's true. We did that. And it was bad. Except this isn't quite that.

Female sterilization is linked to the controversial "eugenics" movement, which advocated for the notion that the human race can be improved by selective breeding of people with superior genes.

There is even a 1927 Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell, in which the justices ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit and "imbeciles," "for the protection and health of the state," was constitutional. The opinion in the case is stunning, especially because the Supreme Court has never technically overruled it. But Buck v. Bell dealt with involuntary sterilization of people because of their mental disabilities, not because they were being punished for a crime.

You can hate sterilization, and the Tennessee case may have the creepy feel of the antiquated practice of eugenics, but it's not that. Present-day sterilization plea deals involve a voluntary choice of sterilization by persons accused of a crime, and for whom sterilization will be part of their punishment.

Others may argue that the Supreme Court has already spoken on the issue of compulsory sterilization as punishment, and struck it down. That's true too, sort of.

In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the court struck down a law permitting compulsory sterilization of criminals as unconstitutional, but not because it was cruel and unusual. Instead, the law was struck down because the law was unequally applied for similar crimes.

So the question remains: Is sterilization as a punishment unconstitutional?

The Eighth Amendment provides: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Practically, however, punishments are rarely deemed cruel and unusual by the judiciary. We have executed people with hangings and by firing squad. Sterilization has to be somewhere below that, right? Ultimately, however, the constitutionality of sterilization may be a red herring in this analysis, because it appears that even if a punishment violates the Constitution, it is permissible, if you willingly choose it.

Suppose arguendo (for argument's sake) that sterilization is judicially labeled a cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. This is where it gets interesting: It still might be an appropriate and constitutional part of a plea deal. Shocked? You shouldn't be.

As citizens, we validly waive our constitutional rights all the time. You waive your Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure when you answer "yes" to an officer's "Mind if I look in your trunk?" You waive your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when you try to explain to the detective in the interrogation room how that body got in your vehicle's trunk. So then, if we can validly waive our other constitutional rights, can we waive our Eighth Amendment rights and choose a cruel and unusual punishment, .even if it would otherwise be unconstitutional? And are people outraged because this is a new step in punishment or a new frontier and a slippery slope in the world of plea deals?

Nope.

Sterilization statutes have been around for a while as punishment for defendants all over the country, and defendants have willingly chosen the procedure.

If sterilization plea deals are likely constitutional, and we've been doing it for a while, then that begs the question: Why the outrage now? Why the story that a Tennessee prosecutor was fired for a plea bargain that appears to be widely practiced?

There are really only two possibilities. First, some people just had no idea that this was going on until this story hit the news. Second, even if we knew about it, we didn't mind the practice until now because of one fundamental difference.

Most of the sterilization defendants are men.

Search your feelings, Luke. When we talk about castrating men who are recidivist sexual predators and child molesters, the idea of castration as punishment doesn't sound so bad right? Be honest: Let go of your "we're-all-equal-in-all-ways" banner for a moment. After all, not too long ago, execution was a legal punishment for nonhomicide sex crimes in some jurisdictions. So if we're OK with the gas chamber, we're probably OK with a snip. It's OK. You can admit it; we are all hardwired with a modicum of gender bias, whether we like it or not.

Still not convinced? Watch this parlor trick: What if I suggested sterilization for a person convicted of having sex with a minor? So far you're not ruling it out.

And what if it's a young female high school teacher having sex with her 17-year-old student? Most of our gut feelings shifted from "maybe" to "no" just now. It's OK to admit that, too. Of course, sterilization won't prevent a female sex offender from offending again, no more than sterilization will prevent a male offender from offending again. But the point is, somehow, the notion of sterilizing a male criminal somehow sits better with us than sterilizing a female criminal.

Maybe it's that on a primal, unconscious level, what feels cruel and unusual punishment for a woman just feels less so for a man. Even if you're offended by this theory of why an old practice is now a "shocking" news story, you must concede it fits. Why else has castration of men not been a blip on the radar, but offering a woman the option of sterilization is suddenly a travesty? Of course, we have to consider the related justification. Overall, a lot more men commit acts that merit sterilization than do women. Just ask any domestic violence prosecutor.

Are sterilization plea deals morally right? It's hard to say. For now, they appear to be constitutional, but controversial. If we know a mother is likely to kill or seriously hurt her current children or her unborn child, should the government step in? If so, to what degree? Fortunately, we can avoid a final decision and continue to attack the problem in a way that seems to be more acceptable for now: just keep neutering the men.




“Recently, Nashville's district attorney banned prosecutors from offering female sterilization in plea deals. Believe it or not, Nashville prosecutors have offered this option four times in the past five years. There has been public outrage at the notion that a defendant in America in 2015 would be offered a choice of sterilization as part of a plea deal. Except, it happens all the time. …. The opinion in the case is stunning, especially because the Supreme Court has never technically overruled it. But Buck v. Bell dealt with involuntary sterilization of people because of their mental disabilities, not because they were being punished for a crime. …. In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the court struck down a law permitting compulsory sterilization of criminals as unconstitutional, but not because it was cruel and unusual. Instead, the law was struck down because the law was unequally applied for similar crimes. …. Ultimately, however, the constitutionality of sterilization may be a red herring in this analysis, because it appears that even if a punishment violates the Constitution, it is permissible, if you willingly choose it. …. There are really only two possibilities. First, some people just had no idea that this was going on until this story hit the news. Second, even if we knew about it, we didn't mind the practice until now because of one fundamental difference. Most of the sterilization defendants are men. Search your feelings, Luke. When we talk about castrating men who are recidivist sexual predators and child molesters, the idea of castration as punishment doesn't sound so bad right?”

“If we know a mother is likely to kill or seriously hurt her current children or her unborn child, should the government step in? If so, to what degree?” One important thing was mentioned in the article. What were the crimes on the part of women for which sterilization was considered to be appropriate? I do remember that some of the sterilized women in the 1960's were black women. That is probably what the Skinner v Oklahoma case was about, because it was struck down due to unequal application for similar crimes. In the case proposed above of a woman who had been proven to be dangerous to her children, that would be sensible – or at least germane. My instinct, whether because it may be used as a form of genocide against blacks, or because it is an exceedingly bizarre form of punishment, is that that practice should indeed be banned. I agree with Nashville's District Attorney.





http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/opinions/moghul-what-causes-extremism/index.html

How to prevent more Tsarnaevs
By Haroon Mohgul
Wed April 8, 2015

Photograph – Haroon Moghul


Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at Duke University Islamic Studies Center. He is an author, essayist, and public speaker. 

(CNN)After two days of deliberation, jurors found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty on all counts in the Boston Marathon bombing. The verdict isn't surprising. What might be, however, is the answer to how we prevent this kind of violence from happening again. Because there could be other more young men just like him, which means the lessons we take from Boston will affect whether we can keep America and Americans safer.

Today, nearly 1 out of 4 people in the world are Muslim. By 2050, Pew reports, that will be some 1 out of 3. By 2070? Well, I'll quote the all-caps headline reprinted by the Drudge Report:"Muslims to outnumber Christians!" Many Americans read such numbers and worry: Will this mean more Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs? But that's only if you believe Islam causes extremism, which many have argued.

And that's wrong, of course. On the other hand, there are people who claimIslam has nothing to do with terrorism. Which is true — and false. Sure, the Islamic faith forbids murder, but there's a small but significant minority of Muslims murdering people in terrible ways, and in Islam's name. Understanding what leads young Muslims like Dzhokhar down a dangerous path requires we understand radicalization.

At any given moment in the Middle East, we have little idea who's going to attack whom next, who's on whom's side, how this is going to end, or what anyone's even fighting over anymore. This bad news is going to turn worse before it gets better. But it will get better. To understand why, we have to take a stab at understanding what radicalizes Muslims

Contrary to common belief, Muslims aren't unusually predisposed to violence. Radical Islam, which has taken on an ugly life of its own, began at the intersection of politics, religion and religious identity.

Islam is about what you believe, but it's also about being part of a community. And what happens when you are a member of a community and you see it under attack? Some Muslims who have turned to violence have done so with good intentions (the road to hell, after all).

Consider: The tragedy of modern Islam is in its endless sequence of tragedies. Before my time, the brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan horrified many Muslims. When I was in high school, Bosnia occupied all our attention. There was of course Russia's brutal war on the Chechen people — Dzhokhar shares his name with a recent Chechen patriot -- and Israel's ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories.

And the blows against Muslims don't end there.

There was Serbia's war on Kosovo, another war in Chechnya, the invasion of Iraq, oppression in Myanmar, civil strife in Syria, the colonization of East Turkestan, massacres of Muslims in the Central African Republic, wars on a besieged Gaza and West Bank still under Israeli rule.

Imagine how this looks to a restless young Muslim. Countless places where co-religionists have been killed, and nobody seems to do anything about it. Nobody even wants to. Extremists have long offered crude reasons for why the violence was happening, and then moved quickly to a single, tempting, terrible response: Take up arms — and kill.

In her new book, "Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now", Ayaan Hirsi Ali argues that extremism isn't caused by political circumstances, but by Islam itself. Her conclusion is wrong. To fight extremism, we don't need to reform Islam. We need to show young Muslims that extremism is doing the opposite of what it claimed to. Rather than help Muslims, it's harming them.

When I was a teenager, our Massachusetts mosque hosted a delegation from Bosnia that shared graphic, heartbreaking stories of rape, exile, and massacre inflicted on Muslims, all because of their faith. The mosque raised money, collected food, blankets, medicine. Promises were made to provide more, and regularly. But we all knew that wasn't enough. As we left the mosque, my peers and I were disgruntled and confused. Shocked. Angry.

Our teachers could've told us: Go and fight. Defend your Muslim brothers and sisters who are under siege. Or they could've told us to keep our heads down and make money and live comfortably. Neither answer would have satisfied. Fortunately for us, they offered us a third way. They showed us, patiently, how to work with others, how to compromise, how to get things done. A more engaged American Muslim community, they explained, could use its resources to help people suffering all around the world.

They were right. We saw the dead-end road of radicalism from afar, but we also saw, up close, how communities that isolated themselves and turned inward found themselves powerless, ineffectual and ignored. Thanks to social media, a medium that the world's burgeoning young Muslim population is increasingly comfortable with, more Muslims can and will see this, too. Radicalism will be done in by fellow Muslims who want to save their religion from this monster within it. It's happening already.

Our national conversation about Islam is focused on the wrong issues. Does Islam need a Reformation? What in Islam causes violence? We would do a lot better if we accepted that Muslims the world over have real grievances — dictatorships, corruption, foreign intervention, religious illiteracy, lack of economic opportunity -- and radicals exploit these.

We need to show the young Dzhokhars that, if they want to help, then violence isn't going to help. To fight extremism, we need to pose this question to young Muslims: "Do you want to help your brothers and sisters in faith?" Because those who claim to be defending us are making things so much worse. Their narrative has failed. Their solution is bankrupt. The Caliph wears no clothes. It's the reason why increasing numbers of Muslims reject extremism -- and not just because our numbers are increasing.




“The verdict isn't surprising. What might be, however, is the answer to how we prevent this kind of violence from happening again. …. Fortunately for us, they offered us a third way. They showed us, patiently, how to work with others, how to compromise, how to get things done. A more engaged American Muslim community, they explained, could use its resources to help people suffering all around the world. …. We saw the dead-end road of radicalism from afar, but we also saw, up close, how communities that isolated themselves and turned inward found themselves powerless, ineffectual and ignored. …. Radicalism will be done in by fellow Muslims who want to save their religion from this monster within it. It's happening already. …. To fight extremism, we need to pose this question to young Muslims: "Do you want to help your brothers and sisters in faith?" Because those who claim to be defending us are making things so much worse. Their narrative has failed. Their solution is bankrupt. The Caliph wears no clothes. It's the reason why increasing numbers of Muslims reject extremism -- and not just because our numbers are increasing.”

I do hope that mainstream Muslims are “rejecting extremism.” It should occur to them that perpetual warfare against Israel and against each other, the US and Western powers, is bankrupting them and dividing their communities. The fifteen hundred year long split between Sunni and Shia groups which has been the source of so much debilitating destruction does make me skeptical of the idea that Islamic people are going to “turn away” from violence. I certainly do hope they will, of course.

I am not just being a “feminist” when I say that I am of the opinion that the depressed status and role of women in those countries is fueling the warfare, because it is only men who want to get together and fight – for territory and power or for wealth – and it is “testosterone caused.” When women become a greater part of the consensus in Islamic cultures a number of things will improve. Elect women to positions of governmental leadership, give them full voting rights and a good education and allow them to own businesses and become independently wealthy. Encourage them to write and publish books and other thoughtful works. Stop spoiling the boys when they are being reared in the home. Both the father and mother should contribute to this change in parenting. Punishments like stoning should be made illegal and the law should be structured on justice rather than Sharia Law. Some of the Middle Eastern cultures have been making progress toward a secular state rather than a theocracy, and that will help. I do hope there will be a sea change in the Middle East. It is much needed. Unfortunately the US needs to do the same thing here. Women were not able to own property or vote here as late as 1839 and 1920, respectively. Not only is that kind of thing grossly unfair, it holds a culture back from making progress in all ways. When I see Islamic cultures changing I will trust them more. For now we will just have to fight them, I'm afraid.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bobcat-photographed-catching-a-shark-in-florida/

Bobcat photographed catching a shark in Florida
CBS NEWS
April 8, 2015

Photograph – A bobcat is seen dragging what is believed to be an Atlantic sharpnose shark out of the surf at Sebastian Inlet State Park in Florida.  JOHN BAILEY VIA FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

John Bailey was enjoying a stroll through Sebastian Inlet State park Monday evening when he stumbled across an unusual site: a bobcat, sitting on the edge of the surf, staring into the water.

The Florida man told CBS affiliate WPEC in West Palm he realized the wild cat was keyed in on a shark in the shallow surf.

The bobcat then leapt into the water and bit down on the shark before dragging it onto the shore. The cat's soon-to-be-dinner, a roughly four-foot-long shark, was then picked up and carried off into the woods.

Bailey was able to capture the moment the shark was dragged out of the water on camera.

David Hitzig, director of Busch Wildlife Sanctuary, which rescues and rehabilitates Florida bobcats, told WPEC Florida bobcats frequently hunt along local beaches to catch crabs and other animals.

In a posting on its Facebook pageits Facebook page, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission said there is every reason to believe the photograph is authentic. The commission also said their biologists believe the shark to have been an Atlantic sharpnose shark, which are common in bays and estuaries around the state.




This is the first time I have ever seen a photograph of a bobcat. I thought they were much smaller. I had heard that they could kill even large dogs, and I see why now. Go to the website and look at the photograph. It's very interesting.




http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/07/religious-leaders-threaten-rise-up-persecute-gays.html

Religious Right Leaders Threaten to “Rise Up” If they Don’t Get to Persecute Gays
By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Tuesday, April, 7th, 2015

The RFRA fiasco, including the belated revision to the hate-law in Indiana, may have irrevocably hurt the Republican brand, but if so, Religious Right bigots are unaware of it. More and more their diatribes are couched in not just apocalyptic, but military terms.

Rick Santorum got all frothy and stomped his little feet as he followed Ted Cruz in expressing his anger over the role corporations played in opposing the RFRA. Apparently, saying everybody has equal rights is an assault on “religious freedom.” Meaning fake-Christian freedom to persecute anybody and everybody it does not approve of.

A strange definition of freedom, you have to admit. He claims left-wing officials are “imposing their will on people of faith” but I think most of the country understood it to be the other way around. You know this new generation of RFRA laws have got to be pretty bad when even Walmart opposes them.

Yet according to Santorum, the corporate community now has bought in with the popular culture and bought in with the left. This is not the gay community, this is the left of America trying to impose their will on the church and on the family and really to, in my opinion, devastating consequences.

As a result, Santorum claims that his fellow fake Christians must “begin to push back and rise up” – judging from Santorum, apparently in some whiny and hypocritical fashion. He didn’t mention guns, but we already know you can’t “pray the gay away.”

It is perhaps no surprise to see a headline like this about former General Jerry Boykin, now of the Family Research Council, which doesn’t care about families and sure as heck doesn’t do any research:

Jerry Boykin Calls Upon ‘God’s Army’ To Rise Up And Fight The ‘Evil’ Of Gay Rights

From Right Wing Watch:

“If you’re a Bible-believing Christian, if you’re a person who has a biblical worldview, if you serve the one and only God, you are going to be persecuted, plain and simple” he said, pointing to Springfield’s non-discrimination ordinancewhich bans discrimination on the basis sexual orientation and gender identity [SOGI].

“This SOGI nonsense is an example of exactly what they’re trying to do us,” Boykin said. “They’re trying to put us in a situation where we’re going to lose our businesses, where we’re going to be forced to accept what Adolf Hitler forced the church to accept in Germany in 1937.”

“We’re at war,” Boykin said, as he declared that the push for gay rights is “evil” and cannot be compared to the fight for civil rights: “This is not about civil rights, this is about the evil that has come into our society and is trying to destroy our ability and our freedom to be able to worship our god as we choose.”

“We’re not rising up against evil,” he warned. “When we rise up against evil, we’ve got to rise up like an army. We’ve got to act like we’re in the military because, in fact, we are God’s army.”

He’s all into that “My God can beat up your God,” stuff and was one of the would-be crusaders of the Iraq War era. I’m not certain at what point he missed the whole Moral Majority-thing but then again, he hasn’t ever read a Bible either.

And then you’ve got your Tony Perkins – Boykin’s boss at the FRC – who said last month on Washington Watch that Obama isn’t a Christian and told a caller,

“I think, John, your point about Christians rising up, I think we are getting close to that in this country as we see increasingly this growing hostility at the hands of our own government toward Christianity and I think especially if the court imposes upon the nation a redefinition of marriage. I don’t think the nation is going to accept it, I absolutely don’t, and the conflict that is going to come as a result of it.”

Pro-rapist Mike Huckabee jumped on the bandwagon too, saying last week on Washington Watch that gays “won’t stop until there are no more churches,” and that a “phony crisis” turned Walmart against them, not their blatant intolerance and bigotry:

It’s been manufactured by the left, just as was the war on women. There was no war on women. The left has gotten very good on creating a crisis, something to divide the country, something to create this sense in which ‘we’ve got to go after these conservatives because they are trying to trample over our rights.’

No, I am pretty sure Walmart, looking at the bottom dollar, said, “Holy sh*t, these people are f***** in the head! Let’s bail!”

I am equally sure women will be happy to know they’re just imagining the prospect of going to prison for having a miscarriage.

Oh wait…I guess if there really isn’t a Republican war on women, then Purvi Patel can go home today?

Pat Robertson, frequently the last word in Satan-level dishonesty, says “the gays want to control everything,” when, in fact, they just want the same rights Robertson has.

And Louisiana Governor “Bobby” Jindal, competing with Ted Cruz for the hearts and minds of the Santorum-crowd (the dim-witted who have never actually read the Bible), says the “real victims” of the RFRA were the antigay small business owners, not the gays who were being discriminated against.

According to the hypocritical Jindal, the left are the real hypocrites:

What’s really underneath all of this is the left preaches tolerance and diversity and openness, and that’s true, unless you disagree with them. They don’t want to discriminate anybody unless you happen to be a conservative, or in this case, an evangelical Christian, and that’s the hypocrisy in this.

Somehow, he thinks a better position than equal rights for everybody is extra rights for Christians and none at all for everybody else, and then call that religious tyranny “religious freedom.” Well, we can’t expect much out of Jindal. He is reaching for that Santorum-crowd, too.

The consensus in all this seems to be one of “either us or them,” and “you’re with us or you’re against us,” and that only one of them can survive the encounter. Despite the rhetoric, gays are willing to co-exist. It’s just that the gays are unwilling to be victims of religious persecution.

And that rankles a group that has systematically bullied every opposition, and alternative raised up to it, into the grave over a period of almost 2000 years. Christian conservatives are not very Christian but they are and have always been very ruthless, which is why they have generally been on top of the heap.

They aren’t used to not winning. And being able to use violence to get their way, and we see this tendency toward violence in place of Jesus’ turning the other cheek every time we see gay people or transgenders beaten and murdered by hypocritical fake Christians who claim, like these clowns, to follow the “Prince of Peace.”

Watching Ted Cruz begin his campaign with a hypocritical appeal to Jesus, and the Religious Right’s denunciations of corporations, you have to wonder at what point the Republican establishment follows businesses and backs away – if it can – from their crazy fake Christian allies.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/magazine/purvi-patel-could-be-just-the-beginning.html?_r=0

Purvi Patel Could Be Just the Beginning
By EMILY BAZELON
APRIL 1, 2015

The prosecution of Purvi Patel began in sorrow and ended in more sadness this week. Patel, a 33-year-old woman who lives in Indiana, was accused of feticide — specifically, illegally inducing her own abortion — and accused of having a baby whom she allowed to die. The facts supporting each count are murky, but a jury convicted Patel in February, and on Monday she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

It’s tempting to simply look away from Patel’s case on the grounds that it is an outlier, however tragic. But it demonstrates how unsparing the criminal-justice system can be to women whose pregnancies end in (or otherwise involve) suspicious circumstances. If one lesson of the case is about the legal risk of inducing your own late-term abortion, another is about the peril of trying to get medical help when you are bleeding and in pain.

Last July, Patel went to an emergency room in South Bend, Ind., where she told the doctors she had a miscarriage. Asked what she had done with the fetal remains, she said the baby was stillborn and, not knowing what else to do, she put the body in a bag and left it in a Dumpster. The police were able to recover the body. Later, they also found text messages in which Patel told a friend about ordering pills to induce an abortion from a pharmacy in Hong Kong and about taking the medication. Three days later, she texted the same friend, “Just lost the baby.”

Patel was charged with felony child neglect and feticide, based on the supposed self-abortion. Asked by Slate’s Leon Neyfakh about the apparent contradiction between the charges, the St. Joseph County prosecutor, Ken Cotter, said that a person can be guilty of feticide under Indiana law for deliberately trying to end a pregnancy, even if the fetus survives. As Neyfakh points out, the Indiana feticide statute exempts legal abortions — but while the pills Patel took are available in the United States with a prescription, it’s against the law to order them online, as she apparently did. And so she was prosecuted for taking the medication as well as for letting her baby die after the self-abortion failed.

If this case were only about a woman who clearly gave birth to a live baby and then killed her child, it would be clear cut. There is a line between pregnancy and birth, and once it is crossed, the state has just as much at stake in protecting the life of a newborn as it does in protecting the life of anyone else. But the evidence that Patel’s baby was born alive is sharply contested. The pathologist who testified for the defense, Shaku Teas, said the baby was stillborn. Teas told the court the fetus was at 23 or 24 weeks gestation and that its lungs weren’t developed enough to breathe. (Here’s more supportfor this position.)

But the pathologist for the prosecution, Joseph Prahlow, testified that the fetus was further along than that — at 25 to 30 weeks gestation, which is past the point of viability — and was born alive. News reports from the trial emphasized Prahlow’s use of a “lung float test” in making his determination. The idea behind the test — which dates from the 17th century — is that if the lungs float in water, the baby took at least one breath. If they sink, then the fetus died before leaving the womb.

If that sounds like the old test for witchcraft — if an accused witch floated, she was judged guilty; if she sank, she was innocent — it’s also about as old and nearly as discredited. “The lung float test was disproven over 100 years ago as an indicator for live birth,” Gregory J. Davis, assistant state medical examiner for Kentucky and a professor of pathology and lab medicine at the University of Kentucky, told me. “It’s just not valid.”
When I called Prahlow, who is a professor of pathology and lab medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, South Bend, and a former president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, he conceded that “the lung float test, in and of itself, is unreliable.” Still, Prahlow argued, the lung test could “provide corroborating evidence, in light of additional findings.”

Prahlow enumerated those findings to me as he had to the Patel jury: The weight of the lungs and the other organs, the inflation of the lungs and the air sacs, the presence of blood in the lung vessels and the “relative maturity” of the lungs. Put these findings together, along with a lack of blood in the baby’s body, and “I can’t come up with any other explanation other than that this baby was born alive,” Prahlow said.

But Davis was unconvinced. He said that while he knows and respects Prahlow, his conclusion was “dead wrong.” Prahlow’s list of findings are still “totally nonspecific” as to whether Patel’s baby died in utero or after being born, Davis said. “Or even if we agree hypothetically that the baby took a breath, that doesn’t mean Ms. Patel did anything wrong. What if she was scared and bleeding herself, and she didn’t clamp the cord in time, because she didn’t know how, and the baby died?”

To Davis, the forensics in this case can’t determine whether Patel was culpable any more than looking at a body that fell from a high building can determine whether the fall was a suicide, an accident or a homicide. “Sometimes the only answer you can give as a scientist is ‘I don’t know,’” he said.

Whatever happened to Patel and her baby at the point of delivery, it’s hard to imagine that either the prosecution or the judge at sentencing would have come down as hard on her if they weren’t sure she’d tried to induce her own illegal abortion. And this is where Patel’s case moves from a fight over birth to a fight over pregnancy.

This is the first case I can find in which a state-level feticide law has been successfully used to punish a woman for trying to have an abortion. Women have been charged with other crimes after taking abortion pills without a prescription, but the feticide charge appears to be Indiana’s idea. It could spread, though: About 38 states have fetal homicide laws in place.

The common justification for these measures is that they protect pregnant women against unscrupulous abortion providers or abusive partners. Indiana’s feticide law was intended to apply to the knowing or intentional termination of another’s pregnancy, its history shows. Abortion opponents, who support feticide laws, have given repeated assurances that their aim is not to put pregnant women in prison. “We do not think women should be criminalized,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List told NPR in 2012 after a woman in Idaho was prosecuted for a self-induced abortion, also with pills she ordered online. “Criminal sanctions or any kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists and not for women.”

Nevertheless, prosecutions like these are growing more frequent. In Indiana, before Purvi Patel, there was Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant who tried to commit suicide while pregnant and was also charged with feticide. The charges against Shuai were dropped in 2013 after she pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and spent a year in custody. In Iowa, Christine Taylor faced charges for attempted fetal homicide after falling down the stairs, going to the hospital and being reported for trying to end her pregnancy.

The charges in Taylor’s case were dropped, too. But in anOp-Ed in The Times last year, Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, detailed similar cases. A study they conducted, surveying cases since 1973, turned up hundreds of arrests of women for actions taken during their own pregnancies that the authorities deemed harmful to their fetuses.

Many of the cases involved women who took drugs like cocaine and methamphetamines during pregnancy. But they also included women who refused cesarean sections their doctors recommended — and, lately, women who took abortion pills they ordered online. Last September, I wrote about a mother in Pennsylvania, Jennifer Whalen, who went to prison for helping her 16-year-old daughter do that, even though it was a first-trimester abortion and the girl came to no harm. (Whalen has since been released.)

Patel’s case stands out, for the draconian length of the sentence she received, and for the disturbing image of a baby left in a Dumpster. But it is also part of a pattern. “This case shows how easy it is to sweep up women who’ve had miscarriages and stillbirths into a criminal justice framework,” Paltrow told me. For her, the key question is how to ensure that fewer women become as desperate as Patel must have been about her pregnancy. “Do you think these cases will be less rare if you terrify people and make them criminals?” she said.

Correction: April 2, 2015 
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the text of Indiana’s law included the phrase “another’s pregnancy.” That phrase arose from legal interpretations of the statute, but it is not in the statute itself.

Emily Bazelon is a staff writer for the magazine and the Truman Capote Fellow at Yale Law School.




“The RFRA fiasco, including the belated revision to the hate-law in Indiana, may have irrevocably hurt the Republican brand, but if so, Religious Right bigots are unaware of it. More and more their diatribes are couched in not just apocalyptic, but military terms. …. Rick Santorum got all frothy and stomped his little feet as he followed Ted Cruz in expressing his anger over the role corporations played in opposing the RFRA. Apparently, saying everybody has equal rights is an assault on “religious freedom.” Meaning fake-Christian freedom to persecute anybody and everybody it does not approve of. A strange definition of freedom, you have to admit. He claims left-wing officials are “imposing their will on people of faith” but I think most of the country understood it to be the other way around. You know this new generation of RFRA laws have got to be pretty bad when even Walmart opposes them. …. As a result, Santorum claims that his fellow fake Christians must “begin to push back and rise up” – judging from Santorum, apparently in some whiny and hypocritical fashion. He didn’t mention guns, but we already know you can’t “pray the gay away.” …. “We’re at war,” Boykin said, as he declared that the push for gay rights is “evil” and cannot be compared to the fight for civil rights: “This is not about civil rights, this is about the evil that has come into our society and is trying to destroy our ability and our freedom to be able to worship our god as we choose.” “We’re not rising up against evil,” he warned. “When we rise up against evil, we’ve got to rise up like an army. We’ve got to act like we’re in the military because, in fact, we are God’s army.” …. “I think, John, your point about Christians rising up, I think we are getting close to that in this country as we see increasingly this growing hostility at the hands of our own government toward Christianity and I think especially if the court imposes upon the nation a redefinition of marriage. I don’t think the nation is going to accept it, I absolutely don’t, and the conflict that is going to come as a result of it.” …. I am equally sure women will be happy to know they’re just imagining the prospect of going to prison for having a miscarriage. Oh wait…I guess if there really isn’t a Republican war on women, then Purvi Patel can go home today? …. Watching Ted Cruz begin his campaign with a hypocritical appeal to Jesus, and the Religious Right’s denunciations of corporations, you have to wonder at what point the Republican establishment follows businesses and backs away – if it can – from their crazy fake Christian allies.”

About Purvi Patel – The prosecution of Purvi Patel began in sorrow and ended in more sadness this week. Patel, a 33-year-old woman who lives in Indiana, was accused of feticide — specifically, illegally inducing her own abortion — and accused of having a baby whom she allowed to die. The facts supporting each count are murky, but a jury convicted Patel in February, and on Monday she was sentenced to 20 years in prison. …. This is the first case I can find in which a state-level feticide law has been successfully used to punish a woman for trying to have an abortion. Women have been charged with other crimes after taking abortion pills without a prescription, but the feticide charge appears to be Indiana’s idea. It could spread, though: About 38 states have fetal homicide laws in place.”

“Abortion opponents, who support feticide laws, have given repeated assurances that their aim is not to put pregnant women in prison. “We do not think women should be criminalized,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List told NPR in 2012 after a woman in Idaho was prosecuted for a self-induced abortion, also with pills she ordered online. “Criminal sanctions or any kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists and not for women.” In Iowa, Christine Taylor faced charges for attempted fetal homicide after falling down the stairs, going to the hospital and being reported for trying to end her pregnancy. The charges in Taylor’s case were dropped, too. But in an Op-Ed in The Times last year, Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, detailed similar cases. A study they conducted, surveying cases since 1973, turned up hundreds of arrests of women for actions taken during their own pregnancies that the authorities deemed harmful to their fetuses.”

The first article I read about a miscarriage being prosecuted as an attempted abortion was that of a teenaged girl who miscarried at school in the women's bathroom. The school actually called in the police who tried to prove that she had induced the abortion. Apparently it's not new, however. Lynn Paltrow listed cases going back to 1973 involving arrests on the grounds that they had done things that were “harmful” to the fetus while stopping short at calling it an induced abortion.

This new law seems to support legal abortions by abortion clinics, but not if the woman bought the abortion drug on the Internet from overseas. The Religious Right has also posed difficulties for abortion clinics such as requiring abortion doctors to have hospital privileges at a local hospital. That has occurred in Texas under Governor Perry. He also opposed textbooks for Texas that taught evolution. The right in general is fighting the abortion rights of women and other right wing issues by making state laws against those things that they oppose which are so constructed as to give a loophole for the conservative law that hopefully will make it impervious to Supreme Court rulings on various issues.

The first article on RFRA laws and the inflammatory remarks by Cruz and Santorum, etc., shows a characterization of their modern “fight” as a war. I agree that it is, but I don't think most of them will commit any crimes that will jeopardize their freedom by planting bombs, etc., but you never know. The Catholic anti-abortionists have bombed abortion clinics and even killed abortion doctors. That's much more risky, though, as anyone who is caught doing those things will be sent to prison or even get the death penalty.

I think politicians like to rant and rave – that's often referred to as “red meat” – as long as they think it will activate their fan base. They ran into something that they didn't foresee in last week's Indiana law which was immediately spotted as being anti-gay. The public outcry against them was fierce, and the governors of Indiana and Georgia had to put on the brakes and revise the offending portions of the law allowing businesses to “refuse service to anyone” on religious grounds. We all know that kind of law was rampant in the US against blacks, who were being prohibited from sitting down in restaurants and receiving service. Now they were trying to bring it in against gays. If it's allowed in either case nowadays it will be a violation of rights and illegal. The Tea Party crew will keep up their attempt to take over the US inch by inch, but so will the liberals. I think the religious right will only get so far before they are opposed furiously. It seems, also, that the Internet social media are going to be a large part of the battleground.