Sunday, May 31, 2015


News Clips For The Day


https://gma.yahoo.com/man-discovers-cat-gave-birth-4-kittens-birds-190758545--abc-news-pets.html

Man Discovers Cat Gave Birth to 4 Kittens in Bird's Nest in Ireland
By AVIANNE TAN
May 29, 2015

Photograph -- Man Discovers Cat Gave Birth to 4 Kittens in Bird's Nest in Ireland (ABC News)

While most people would expect to find birds in nests, Irish pet store owner Henry McGauley says he recently discovered four newborn kittens in a pigeon's nest on a tree in the back garden of his home.

"Henry had heard squawking in the morning, and he didn't know what it was, so he went up the ladder to investigate," Henry's wife, Fiona McGauley, told ABC News today. "That's when he saw four baby newborn kittens."

The couple believes the kittens were born there and that they were only a few days old when they were found this past Monday, Fiona said.

"Their eyes aren't even open," Fiona added. "We left them there because there's not much you can do because they have to be at least six weeks old before they can be taken from their mother."

Momma cat wasn't at the nest when Henry initially discovered it, but the couple found her there a few hours later nursing the kittens, Fiona said.

"It turned out we knew the cat," she said. "We'd always used to see her by the alleyway. She was pregnant, and she disappeared a few times."

Fiona added that she and her husband also feed stray cats at the back of their house all the time.

"In a couple of weeks, the mom will probably bring the kittens to the back door for feeding," she said. "When they're older, we'll take them in, get them tamed and find permanent homes for them."

For now, the kittens are under the care of their mother outside the McGauleys' home.

"There was a heavy shower the other day, so it seems like she moved the kittens, and they're probably under the shed or somewhere inside there," Fiona said. "A lot of our customers are in love with the kittens and excited for when they're old enough to adopt."




"Henry had heard squawking in the morning, and he didn't know what it was, so he went up the ladder to investigate," Henry's wife, Fiona McGauley, told ABC News today. "That's when he saw four baby newborn kittens." The couple believes the kittens were born there and that they were only a few days old when they were found this past Monday, Fiona said. …. "In a couple of weeks, the mom will probably bring the kittens to the back door for feeding," she said. "When they're older, we'll take them in, get them tamed and find permanent homes for them."

Cats are really wonderful animals! This is the best story I’ve come across in the year and a half or so that I’ve been doing these blogs. Of course there’s also the house cat that jumped on the pit bull with all four feet and drove him away from her little four year old master, and the housecat whose flea collar had slipped down into his mouth and was choking him. He knocked his mistress’s cell phone off onto the floor and pushed the 911 button, meowing loudly into the receiver. The paramedics showed up several minutes later and took off the collar. That one has always amazed me, but I had a cat that would come and sit at my feet looking into my face whenever I got on the phone. I would put the phone up to her ear and have my friend talk to her. She looked a little surprised, so I know she heard the voice. I think this woman’s cat probably also was curious when her “mom” talked into the strange little box and had become aware that there was a real person there. Cats are not dumb, they just don’t do tricks! They have an image to uphold.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hastert-indictment-raises-questions-over-2006-capitol-hill-scandal/

Hastert indictment raises questions over 2006 Capitol Hill scandal
By JULIANNA GOLDMAN CBS NEWS
May 31, 2015

Photograph -- U.S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) leaves the House Republican Conference leadership elections alone on Capitol Hill November 17, 2006 in Washington, DC. GETTY IMAGES

WASHINGTON -- The indictment of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and revelations that he allegedly paid a former student to conceal past sexual abuse, could raise new questions about his actions during the 2006 scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley over inappropriate messages Foley sent to House pages.

A House Ethics Committee investigation, completed in December of that year, said that Hastert had likely been told about Foley's behavior months before the communications were revealed.

Asked whether the report's conclusions should be viewed any differently in light of the revelations over the last 48 hours, one former lawmaker who was a member of the investigative subcommittee said they've been asking themselves that very question. The former House member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it never occurred to them that there might have been a personal reason for why Hastert didn't act swiftly at the time. They said there was no basis for knowing about Hastert's past and was completely surprised by the indictment.

Sexual misconduct allegations shock Capitol Hill
What Foley took from the page program

The 89-page report from a House ethics panel did not find that any current House members or employees violated the House Code of Official Conduct. But, the Investigative Subcommittee "was disturbed" by the conduct of some of those who dealt with allegations regarding Foley's behavior. It found instances where House leadership "failed to exercise appropriate diligence and oversight." And it says "a pattern of conduct was exhibited among many individuals to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of former Representative Foley's conduct with respect to House pages."

Then-Majority Leader John Boehner testified to Congressional investigators that he had told Hastert on the House floor about Foley's communications in the spring of 2006, and that he believed Hastert told him the matter "has been taken care of." Representative Tom Reynolds also testified that he told Hastert about the issue, most likely in the Speaker's office. Hastert testified that he didn't recall either conversation.

There are two other living former lawmakers who were members of the Investigative subcommittee and they were also reached by CBS News on Saturday. They said the report shouldn't be viewed any differently and should only be seen in the context of the 2006 investigation. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity and said they were shocked about the details that have emerged from the indictment, one calling it a "personal tragedy" for Hastert and his family.

"The committee report stands as is," one of the former members said. "There's no way anybody can draw any conclusions."

The 2006 report stated: "The Investigative Subcommittee cannot determine conclusively the motivation for those who failed to fulfill their responsibilities" but identified several factors including that "raising the issue too aggressively might have risked exposing Rep. Foley's homesexuality, which could have adversely affected him both personally and politically." It also says that months before the midterm elections, "political considerations played a role" and that "the wishes of the page's family for privacy could have provided a convenient justification for failing to pursue the matter more aggressively for those who were already so inclined."

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner would not comment.




“A House Ethics Committee investigation, completed in December of that year, said that Hastert had likely been told about Foley's behavior months before the communi-cations were revealed. Asked whether the report's conclusions should be viewed any differently in light of the revelations over the last 48 hours, one former lawmaker who was a member of the investigative subcommittee said they've been asking them-selves that very question. The former House member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it never occurred to them that there might have been a personal rea-son for why Hastert didn't act swiftly at the time. They said there was no basis for knowing about Hastert's past and was completely surprised by the indictment. …. But, the Investigative Subcommittee "was disturbed" by the conduct of some of those who dealt with allegations regarding Foley's behavior. It found instances where House leadership "failed to exercise appropriate diligence and oversight." …. Then-Majority Leader John Boehner testified to Congressional investigators that he had told Hastert on the House floor about Foley's communications in the spring of 2006, and that he believed Hastert told him the matter "has been taken care of." Repre-sentative Tom Reynolds also testified that he told Hastert about the issue, most likely in the Speaker's office. Hastert testified that he didn't recall either conversation. …. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity and said they were shocked about the de-tails that have emerged from the indictment, one calling it a "personal tragedy" for Hastert and his family. …. : "The Investigative Subcommittee cannot determine con-clusively the motivation for those who failed to fulfill their responsibilities" but iden-tified several factors including that "raising the issue too aggressively might have risked exposing Rep. Foley's homesexuality, which could have adversely affected him both personally and politically." …. and that "the wishes of the page's family for privacy could have provided a convenient justification for failing to pursue the mat-ter more aggressively for those who were already so inclined."

Homosexual attractions in both men and women are built into the species. Societal religious standards tend to stifle it, and some people do “swing both ways,” but I remember a very popular television evangelist named Ted Haggart, who, after years of ranting about religion and garnering several million dollars for his group, was suddenly found to have been involved with men repeatedly. See the excerpt from Wikipedia’s biography on Haggart. It shows the blindness of many Christians on the matter. The disappointment in him was rampant. He repented loudly and publically, but all that religious faith didn’t stop him from seeking sex with beautiful young men. We need to accept homosexuality as one of the several forms of sexuality – some more bizarre than others -- that occur as a preference over “straight” sex. Freud made a name for himself on looking into the variety of sexual activity that existed in the 1890 to 1920 period. One of my favorite writers, Oscar Wilde, wrote a great long poem about the time he spent in prison after a high profile court case about it. He was convicted, despite his tremendous popularity, because when asked by the prosecutor about whether or not he had kissed a certain young man, said of course not, giving as the reason that he was “particularly plain.” Wealth, societal position, education or even intellectual brilliance don’t give relief from the temptation. Some US religious people nowadays are trying to force people with gay tendencies into psychotherapy and even a heterosexual marriage, but it doesn’t do any good. I personally wish that men with homosexual tendencies wouldn’t involve themselves with women at all, because it only causes bitter, heart rending divorces, especially if the woman happens to be in love with the man.



Ted Haggard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers. In February 2007, one of those ministers, Tim Ralph, said that Haggard "is completely heterosexual."[3] Ralph later said he meant that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side." On June 1, 2010 Haggard an-nounced that he intended to start a new church in Colorado Springs.[4] In a July 2010 interview with CNN, he confirmed that he has "completely shunned away any homosex-ual feelings he has had in the past."[5] In the February 2011 issue of GQ, however, Hag-gard said that, "probably, if I were 21 in this society, I would identify myself as a bisexu-al."[6]



Oscar Wilde
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carson then moved to the factual evidence and questioned Wilde about his acquaintances with younger, lower-class men. Wilde admitted being on a first-name basis and lavishing gifts upon them, but insisted that nothing untoward had occurred and that the men were merely good friends of his. Carson repeatedly pointed out the unusual nature of these relationships and insinuated that the men were prostitutes. Wilde replied that he did not believe in social barriers, and simply enjoyed the society of young men. Then Carson asked Wilde directly whether he had ever kissed a certain servant boy, Wilde responded, "Oh, dear no. He was a particularly plain boy – unfortunately ugly – I pitied him for it."[129] Carson pressed him on the answer, repeatedly asking why the boy's ugliness was relevant. Wilde hesitated, then for the first time became flustered: "You sting me and insult me and try to unnerve me; and at times one says things flippantly when one ought to speak more seriously."[129]





http://thefreethoughtproject.com/woman-calls-non-emergency-hotline-suicidal-boyfriend-cops-show-ar-15s-kill/

Woman Calls Non-Emergency Hotline for Suicidal Boyfriend, Cops Show Up with AR-15s, Kill Him
By Matt Agorist on May 28, 2015

St. Augustine, FL — Justin Way had been alcohol-free for five weeks. He was doing well, but then slipped off the wagon on May 11, leading to an intoxicated evening with suicidal thoughts.

“He just lost his job, and he had a setback,” said his father, George Way.

Way’s live-in girlfriend, Kaitlyn Christine Lyons, said she’d caught Justin drinking a bottle of vodka, which she took away from him to pour out. She said he was drunk, lying in their bed with a large knife, saying he would hurt himself with it. She called a non-emergency number in an attempt to get her boyfriend to a local St. Augustine, Florida, hospital for help—and told them she did not feel threatened.

Lyons explained to the Beast that her brother had been “Baker Acted” three times for threatening to hurt himself, so she assumed that is what would happen with Way. Florida’s Baker Act allows for the involuntary institutionalization of people who may present a threat to themselves or others. Police officers in Florida can be the ones to carry it out.

However, just minutes after Lyons would end her call with the non-emergency hotline, two officers from the St. Johns County Sheriff’s department would show up. They were apparently not interested in Baker Acting anyone.

Deputies Jonas Carballosa and Kyle Braig showed up with assault rifles in hand and told Lyons to wait outside while they attended to the man in crisis.

“I thought they were going into war,” Lyons told the Daily Beast. Seconds later Way was dead.

According to the Daily Beast:

George Way said the initial report he received from Det. Mike Smith detailed an incident wherein his officers said they were attacked by Justin with a knife. Way said Smith told him Justin had threatened Kaitlyn. Kaitlyn denies this.

Denise Way, Justin’s mom, said that the detective relayed to her that “they told Justin to drop the knife and he didn’t—so they shot him because that’s what we do.”

Denise said Smith then told her about “this new trend in law-enforcement now—it’s called suicide by cop.” She said Smith explained “suicide by cop” is when suicidal people provoke the police in an effort to end their own lives.

The department implying that Way chose to end his life through “suicide by cop” is asinine. He never called the cops, and his girlfriend called a non-emergency number.

According to the family, there was no blood on the walls nor on the floor, only in the bed. Police would not tell them where or how many times Justin Way was shot.

After finding a bullet in the mattress, Way’s family is convinced he was killed while still in the bed.

“If Justin was coming after them with a knife, at 6-foot-4, wouldn’t there be blood splattered all over the room?” George Way said.

The Beast asked the department if it was “standard procedure to bring assault rifles, but not mental-health professionals, to a scene where someone is suicidal.”

Commander Chuck Mulligan responded by saying, “If the deputies feel that that is the appropriate weapon system to use, then yes.”

This is the second time in under six months that deputy Braig was involved in the killing of a man holding a knife.

According to the Beast, Way’s parents said they do not ever want to call the police again—for anything.

“I think they should come in using other things,” said Lyons. “And I think they definitely need to figure out how to handle suicidal people.”

Unfortunately for Lyons and the rest of the American population, police officers seem completely unwilling to learn how to deal with individuals who are experiencing a mental crisis.


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/woman-calls-non-emergency-hotline-suicidal-boyfriend-cops-show-ar-15s-kill/#eloSFf2MAi5Fk0vZ.99



“However, just minutes after Lyons would end her call with the non-emergency hotline, two officers from the St. Johns County Sheriff’s department would show up. They were apparently not interested in Baker Acting anyone. Deputies Jonas Carballosa and Kyle Braig showed up with assault rifles in hand and told Lyons to wait outside while they attended to the man in crisis. …. The Beast asked the department if it was “standard procedure to bring assault rifles, but not mental-health professionals, to a scene where someone is suicidal.” Commander Chuck Mulligan responded by saying, “If the deputies feel that that is the appropriate weapon system to use, then yes.” This is the second time in under six months that deputy Braig was involved in the killing of a man holding a knife. …. “I think they should come in using other things,” said Lyons. “And I think they definitely need to figure out how to handle suicidal people.” Unfortunately for Lyons and the rest of the American population, police officers seem completely unwilling to learn how to deal with individuals who are experiencing a mental crisis.”

If you are a police officer, you must choose a “weapons system,” right? An officer’s duty is to carry out executions, apparently. This is a particularly ugly story about officers who, first, had not been trained correctly for encountering a mental health issue. Police shouldn’t have been sent anyway, but rather an ambulance and medics, along with a mental health worker. If cops come too, that would make sense, if the emergency staff were endangered, but they shouldn’t have come alone. And second, the supervisor Commander Mulligan saw nothing wrong with what happened, saying their use of deadly force was essentially their option to choose. In other words, cops are not specifically trained in what they should do and how they do it or required to carry those things out. Finally, this officer lied about what happened in order to save his own neck. Specious excuses for why they killed a suspect when lesser measures would have been as good or better have shown up in almost all the post-Ferguson cases which have made the news, and courts have exonerated them on those stories and “evidence.” I imagine what happened was the cops came in while the victim was lying on the bed, saw him holding the knife, ordered him to drop it, and then when he failed to do so simply shot him. The bullet was found in the mattress along with all the blood – none on the walls or floor.

Hopefully there will be more about this in the coming days. Sadly, St. Augustine is a beautiful little historical town ten miles from Jacksonville. As much as I like the place, however, it was one of the sites of bloody fighting during the 1960s civil rights marches. This man, notably was not black, so police “procedure” of this kind is being carried out across the board. This is more than just a failure of bad apple police officers, but for their training, supervision and upper level philosophy of policing.





http://mic.com/articles/119630/bernie-sanders-wants-to-tax-the-rich-at-90-here-s-why-that-s-not-so-crazy

Bernie Sanders Wants to Tax the Rich at 90%. Here's Why That's Not So Crazy
By Zeeshan Aleem
May 29, 2015

CNBC released an interview Tuesday with presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in which he discussed what it means to have a moral economy in the U.S.

As is so often the case with the self-avowed democratic socialist, the conversation turned toward how to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. Sanders made the case by playfully explaining how high tax rates on the highest income brackets were once not only considered normal in America but were endorsed by Republicans.

"When radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90%," Sanders said in the interview.

When journalist John Harwood replied by asking whether Sanders considered this to be something that would be too severe today, Sanders dismissed the notion:

At first glance, even the most fervent of Sanders' supporters may feel a flicker of hesitation upon hearing "90%" and "taxes" mentioned in the same sentence. (The comment has certainly made conservatives queasy.) Would a 90% tax rate mean that if you happen to make a decent living, virtually all of it goes to the government?

It doesn't. The key word in the tax rate Sanders mentioned is "marginal," and both American history and recent economic research suggest that high marginal income tax rates can coexist with a flourishing economy.

What's a marginal tax rate? Income isn't taxed uniformly — different levels of their income are taxed at different rates. A marginal rate is the tax rate on the last dollar you earned.

"You can imagine a case where the first $200,000 people earn is taxed at a 30% rate, and then starting at above $200,000 that marginal rate increases, and then maybe for every dollar somebody earn over $5 million in a year, the marginal rate then becomes 90%," Josh Bivens, research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, told Mic.

Sanders didn't specify at what income threshold he would consider a marginal tax rate of 90%, but Bivens suspects Sanders would think it should kick in "somewhere well into the millions."

"It's not that radical, unless you're calling Eisenhower's America a radical place, and given that no one would propose a high rate like that on anything like an ordinary income, it would basically be irrelevant to the tax burden of the vast majority of Americans," Bivens said.

Until the Reagan revolution, both marginal tax rates and average tax rates (the total share of your income that went to the federal government) were almost unfathomably high compared to what policymakers consider in contemporary American politics. And they happened precisely at a time when the American economy was booming.

"In the 1950s, the highest marginal tax rate was about 90% in the United States — very, very few people paid a marginal rate of that much," Bivens said. "In 1960 the average tax rate for the richest .01% of households in the U.S. was actually more than 70%.

"So we've definitely had experience in the not-so-ancient past of tax rates much higher than we have today, and it's important to note that in the '50s and '60s when we had these much higher rates — both marginal and average — we had faster rates of economic growth than we're seeing today."

As Bryce Covert at ThinkProgress notes, in 2014 a pair of economists estimated that a top marginal tax rate of about 90% for the top 1% is optimal for maximizing government revenue without extinguishing the desire for the rich to earn more.

The ultimate objective isn't simply to tax high income for as much as conceivably possible, but to find ways to redistribute the upward trickle of wealth. It also achieves something that's become a cornerstone of what has emerged as a major 2016 theme — it reduces inequality.




“CNBC released an interview Tuesday with presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in which he discussed what it means to have a moral economy in the U.S. As is so often the case with the self-avowed democratic socialist, the conversation turned toward how to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. Sanders made the case by playfully explaining how high tax rates on the highest income brackets were once not only considered normal in America but were endorsed by Republicans. "When radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90%," Sanders said in the interview. …. Would a 90% tax rate mean that if you happen to make a decent living, virtually all of it goes to the government? It doesn't. The key word in the tax rate Sanders mentioned is "marginal," and both American history and recent economic research suggest that high marginal income tax rates can coexist with a flourishing economy. What's a marginal tax rate? Income isn't taxed uniformly — different levels of their income are taxed at different rates. A marginal rate is the tax rate on the last dollar you earned. …. "It's not that radical, unless you're calling Eisenhower's America a radical place, and given that no one would propose a high rate like that on anything like an ordinary income, it would basically be irrelevant to the tax burden of the vast majority of Americans," Bivens said. …. "In 1960 the average tax rate for the richest .01% of households in the U.S. was actually more than 70%. "So we've definitely had experience in the not-so-ancient past of tax rates much higher than we have today, and it's important to note that in the '50s and '60s when we had these much higher rates — both marginal and average — we had faster rates of economic growth than we're seeing today." …. The ultimate objective isn't simply to tax high income for as much as conceivably possible, but to find ways to redistribute the upward trickle of wealth. It also achieves something that's become a cornerstone of what has emerged as a major 2016 theme — it reduces inequality.”

• "You can imagine a case where the first $200,000 people earn is taxed at a 30% rate, and then starting at above $200,000 that marginal rate increases, and then maybe for every dollar somebody earn over $5 million in a year, the marginal rate then becomes 90%," Josh Bivens, research and policy director at the Eco-nomic Policy Institute, told Mic.” So a high marginal tax rate only causes trouble for the 1%, and the government has more money to run our needed social, ed-ucational and environmental programs. See these articles from Wikipedia and taxfoundation.org/blog about trickle down in general and the Laffer Curve.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

….

"Trickle-down economics", also referred to as "trickle-down theory", chiefly and originally in United States politics, is the idea that economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will indirectly benefit poorer members of society when the resources inevitably "trickle down" to them.[1] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2]

In more recent history, the theory is most closely identified with critics of the economic policies known as "Reaganomics" or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first, but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[3][4] Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[5] In the United Kingdom, the idea was also utilized by Margaret Thatcher's government and became a main plank of Thatcherism.[6]

Context[edit]

Economist Thomas Sowell has written that the actual path of money in a private enterprise economy is quite the opposite of that claimed by people who refer to the trickle-down theory. He noted that money invested in new business ventures is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable, does money return to the business owners—but in the absence of a profit motive, which is reduced in the aggregate by a raise in marginal tax rates in the upper tiers, this activity does not occur. Sowell further has made the case[7] that no economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics who either willfully distort or misunderstand the actual stated goals of their political opponents.[8]

Although the term "trickle down" is mainly political and does not denote a specific economic theory, some economic theories reflect the meaning of this pejorative. Some macro-economic models assume that a certain proportion of each dollar of income will be saved. This is called the marginal propensity to save. Many studies have found that the marginal propensity to save is considerably higher among wealthier people.[citation needed] Policies, including tax cuts, that seek to increase saving are often aimed at the wealthy for this reason.[9] Saving usually means some form of investment, as even money placed in savings accounts is ultimately invested by the banks.

In the early 1990s Congressional Records, non-pejorative uses of the term are rare but do appear.[10][11][12][13]

Criticisms[edit]

Critics often point to declining real wages (excluding health insurance) as a response to trickle-down economics.
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[14]

Proponents of Keynesian economics and other related theories often claim the wealthy tax cuts are, in fact, not used for the benefit and productive asset of investing but rather for personal gain.[15][16]

While running against Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1980, George H. W. Bush derided Reaganomics as "voodoo economics".[17] Similarly, In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics "political voodoo."[18]

In New Zealand, Labour Party MP Damien O'Connor has, in the Labour Party campaign launch video for the 2011 general election, called trickle-down economics "the rich pissing on the poor".

A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy.[19]

University of Cambridge professor Ha-Joon Chang criticised the policies of trickle down in several publications, citing examples of: "slowing job growth in the last few decades, rising income inequality in most rich nations, and the inability provision in raising living standards across all income brackets rather than at the top only".[20]

Theory explaining wealth concentration in the hands of the rich is called Matthew effect.

History and usage of the term[edit]

In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous Cross of Gold speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.[21]
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes that the first known use of trickle-down as an adjective meaning "relating to or working on the principle of trickle-down theory" was in 1944,[22] while the first known use of trickle-down theory was in 1954.[23]

After leaving the Presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, alleged "Republicans [...] simply don't know how to manage the economy. They're so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the richest corporations the biggest break, that the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket." [24]

Speaking on the Senate floor in 1992, Sen. Hank Brown (R-Colorado) said, "Mr. President, the trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."[25]



http://taxfoundation.org/blog/does-lowering-taxes-increase-government-revenue

Does Lowering Taxes Increase Government Revenue?
December 15, 2010
By Nick Kasprak

The idea that lowering taxes can raise revenue, or that the tax cuts “pay for themselves” as some say, is not new; it’s been around since at least the 1980s, and it’s a fundamental tenet of supply-side economics. The argument is that it’s possible for tax rates to be so high (and therefore such a burden on the economy) that lowering them allows the economy (and the tax base) to grow fast enough that the extra revenue from the larger base is more than the lost revenue from the lower tax rate. During the Nixon administration, the economist Arthur Laffer, who was later a member of Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board, created an illustration now known as the “Laffer Curve”:

Laffer

Hardly anyone disputes the basic concept shown here. At a tax rate of 0%, the government gets no revenue. It can increase revenue by increasing tax rates, up to a certain point, called the "revenue maximizing point" (labeled t* here) beyond which increasing tax rates any further damages the economy enough to cause revenue to go down, all the way back to zero at a rate of 100% (where the government takes everything you make, eliminating your incentive to work at all.)

Note that this is a greatly simplified picture – we have a progressive income tax, and different groups of people pay taxes at different rates depending on their income, in addition to the existence of various credits, deductions, and the like (the instructions for the Form 1040 alone are 175 pages long). So there is obviously a problem inherent in attempting to boil down our entire federal income tax code into a single number. But the broader concept is applicable, regardless of these complications.

The big question is, what is t*? Is our current tax system below t* (at a point like t1) where decreasing tax rates decreases revenue, or is it above t* (at a point like t2) where decreasing tax rates increases revenue? It’s not an easy question to answer, because of the complications mentioned above. Additionally, if you want to look at historical tax cuts, there’s no control to compare revenues against – even if it appears that a tax cut raised government revenue, there’s no way of knowing for sure what revenues would have been without it.

Romney, for his part, seems to be saying that the Bush tax cuts raised revenue, implying that Clinton-era tax rates were at the point t2 on the Laffer curve. There are hardly any economists who would agree, and it’s hard to believe Romney if you look at the data. Here is a graph of government revenue and tax rates from 1980 to 2006:
taxRates

I've used per capita figures to adjust for population growth. Supply-side economists usually argue that the marginal rate is the most important, and I’ve included it here, as well as average effective rates for each income quintile , calculated by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center here, to get as broad a picture as possible of the level of taxation for each year.

The Bush tax cuts were first enacted in 2001, and it’s easy to see the drop in tax rates beginning in that year on this chart. If Romney’s argument is correct, we should see a jump in federal revenues beginning that year as well, but we don’t – in fact, revenue falls rather sharply from 2001 to 2003, when the tax cuts were being phased in.

There is a huge caveat here: The United States experienced a recession in 2002 and 2003, which accounts for at least part of the drop in revenue. And many argue that the increase in revenue visible after 2003 is evidence that the Bush tax cuts grew the economy. Did they grow the economy so fast that revenue began to exceed what it otherwise would have been without the cuts? At least from a basic analysis like this one, it’s impossible to know for sure if revenue would have been higher had Clinton-era tax rates been kept, but a growing economy is the norm, and the general trend in the long term, clearly visible in the graph, is for revenues to rise as per capita GDP goes up. Furthermore, revenue did not start to rise until after the Bush tax cuts were fully phased-in; during the period when tax rates were falling (from 2001 to 2003), revenue went down. The correlation visible on the graph is striking.

It’s unfortunate, therefore, to see prominent public figures like Romney making such an argument – an argument that hardly any economists take seriously. Given current budget realities, it amounts to little more than wishful thinking, and makes life harder for reformers who are serious about the deficit. Proposing tough options like spending cuts or tax increases, necessary to solve our long-term budget problem, becomes harder when people believe there’s an easy fix. And it undermines his larger argument for permanently extending the Bush tax cuts, because there are many valid reasons to favor their extension that don’t rely on the fallacious idea that doing so will raise revenue. For example, there’s a clear argument to be made that the Bush tax cuts helped spur economic growth and were a factor in ending the early 2000s recession, even if they didn’t increase government revenue. The ultimate goal of any economic policy is not to maximize government revenue, it’s to maximize long-term economic growth. Getting back to the Laffer Curve concept, there’s no particular reason why a tax rate of t*, the rate that maximizes government revenue, is the socially optimal rate of taxation. That’s only true if you’re someone who believes that the size of government should necessarily be as large as possible, and that’s certainly not true for any conservative like Romney.

Correction: This post originally stated that the Laffer Curve concept was developed during the Reagan administration; it was actually during the Nixon administration.







http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/silk-road-founder-ross-ulbricht-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/ar-BBkoZTp?ocid=iehp

Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life in prison
The Daily Dot
Patrick Howell O'Neill
May 29, 2015

Graphics -- © Illustration by Max Fleishman Slik Road Logo

A federal judge sentenced Ross Ulbricht to life in prison today in New York City for his role as the mastermind of Silk Road, once the largest online black market for illegal drugs on the Internet.

A jury convicted Ulbricht, who pioneered the secure sale of illegal goods online, in February on seven felony counts, including drug trafficking, money laundering, computer hacking, and identity fraud.

Silk Road, which ran from January 2011 to October 2013 before the FBI seized the site and its assets, was an anonymous marketplace used to sell illegal goods, the vast majority of which were drugs, including heroine, methamphetamine, MDMA, LSD, and others. The website hid the location of itself and its users by utilizing the Tor anonymity network, privacy software developed and funded in part by the U.S. government that's used by police, criminals, journalists, soldiers, and activists worldwide.

Prior to sentencing, Ulbricht, clearly upset, apologized for any lives ruined by overdoses caused by drugs purchased off of Silk Road. "I never wanted that to happen," he said, adding, "I wish I could go back and convince myself to take a different path."

Sales on Silk Road were entirely conducted in Bitcoin. From February 2011 through July 2013, Ulbricht and other Silk Road staffers collected 614,305 bitcoins, or $145,516,568.40 at today's exchange rate, in commissions from sales on the site, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. At the time of Ulbricht's arrest, the total Silk Road commissions were worth just under $80 million.

In a memo to the court, U.S. prosecutors said Ulbricht owes the government $183,961,921 based on the total number of transactions on Silk Road.

Ulbricht's defense team has repeatedly promised an appeal, meaning this saga is far from over. Years after Ulbricht's 2013 arrest, many questions remain about the police investigation including how they found Silk Road's servers and whether police violated the law in doing so.

Federal prosecutors have continuously pushed for harsh sentencing beyond the minimum 20 years against Ulbricht in order to "send a message" to other Dark Net criminals.

“Ulbricht’s conviction is the first of its kind, and his sentencing is being closely watched,” the prosecution wrote in a letter to Judge Katherine Forrest. “The Court thus has an opportunity to send a clear message to anyone tempted to follow his example that the operation of these illegal enterprises comes with severe consequences.”

Ulbricht and his defense team have pushed in the other direction, arguing that Silk Road reduced the dangers of drug use.

“In contrast to the government’s portrayal of the Silk Road website as a more dangerous version of a traditional drug marketplace, in fact the Silk Road website was in many respects the most responsible such marketplace in history, and consciously and deliberately included recognized harm-reduction measures, including access to physician counseling,” Joshua Dratel, Ulbricht's lead defense attorney, wrote to the court. “In addition, transactions on the Silk Road website were significantly safer than traditional illegal drug purchases, and included quality-control and accountability features that made purchasers substantially safer than they were when purchasing drugs in a conventional manner.”

Ulbricht also wrote a personal letter to judge Katherine Forrest in which he pleaded with her to “leave a light at the end of the tunnel” with sentencing that does not take away the rest of his life.

“I know you must take away my middle years, but please leave me my old age," Ulbricht, now 31, wrote. "Please leave a small light at the end of the tunnel, an excuse to stay healthy, an excuse to dream of better days ahead, and a chance to redeem myself before I meet my maker.”

Despite Ulbricht's arrest and the turbulence experienced on the Dark Net ever since, similar black markets grew 37 percent in the last year.

Illustration by Max Fleishman




“The website hid the location of itself and its users by utilizing the Tor anonymity network, privacy software developed and funded in part by the U.S. government that's used by police, criminals, journalists, soldiers, and activists worldwide. Prior to sentencing, Ulbricht, clearly upset, apologized for any lives ruined by overdoses caused by drugs purchased off of Silk Road. "I never wanted that to happen," he said, adding, "I wish I could go back and convince myself to take a different path."…. Federal prosecutors have continuously pushed for harsh sentencing beyond the minimum 20 years against Ulbricht in order to "send a message" to other Dark Net criminals. “Ulbricht’s conviction is the first of its kind, and his sentencing is being closely watched,” the prosecution wrote in a letter to Judge Katherine Forrest. “The Court thus has an opportunity to send a clear message to anyone tempted to follow his example that the operation of these illegal enterprises comes with severe consequences.” …. Despite Ulbricht's arrest and the turbulence experienced on the Dark Net ever since, similar black markets grew 37 percent in the last year.”

Computer geeks tend to be young, and young people tend to have an underdeveloped sense of right and wrong, while overdeveloped on the matter of their own personal brilliance and importance. It’s easy to conclude that anything they want to do is okay. Some of them are greedy, overcome with their sense of power and intelligence, and unable to resist temptation. Making mega money without working is a temptation that, with some people, really is hard to resist.

This article said that questions have been raised about the legality of the police methods of finding the site. While I strongly resist police strong arm tactics as a violation of human rights and American citizenship, I think their employing modern day computer technology to root out Internet criminals should be okay, and if the laws need to be rewritten to make it okay, then rewrite them. From cyberbullying to the purveying of naked little boys being sexually molested to targeting people for rape on the Craigs List site, there is a need for finding who the guilty parties are and putting them in prison. I’m strongly for Net Neutrality and the freedom of self-expression in ordinary ways, and particularly to prevent the unfair suppression of equal access to the Net for purposes of advertising etc. by small businesses at the hands of large corporations, but crime should be punished.






http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-military-shipped-live-anthrax-australia-2008/story?id=31399907

Pentagon Orders Comprehensive Review of Anthrax Lab Work
By LUIS MARTINEZ
May 29, 2015

Photograph -- A Jan. 27, 2010 file photo shows the main gate at Dugway Proving Ground military base, about 85 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah. A Pentagon spokesman said suspected live anthrax samples were shipped from Dugway Proving Ground using a commercial delivery service. Jim Urquhart/AP Photo

The Pentagon has ordered a comprehensive review of its laboratory facilities that handle anthrax after finding more labs in the United States that may have mistakenly received live anthrax, U.S. officials said.

Any laboratories that may have received inactive anthrax samples from the Pentagon in the past have also been advised to stop working with those samples until they get more instruction from the Defense Department and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"As of now, 24 laboratories in 11 states and two foreign countries are believed to have received suspect samples," the Pentagon said in statement this evening.

Previously the Pentagon had said 18 laboratories in 9 states and a military laboratory in South Korea may have mistakenly been sent live anthrax samples.

A review of operations at the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah also found another batch of live anthrax that may have been shipped to Australia in 2008, U.S. officials said earlier today.

Officials are trying to determine what institutions in Australia received the possibly live anthrax and its whereabouts.

Mistaken Anthrax Shipments Still Being Located
Pentagon Inadvertently Shipped Live Anthrax to Labs in Nine States

In light of the new information Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work ordered “a comprehensive review of DoD laboratory procedures, processes, and protocols associated with inactivating spore-forming anthrax."

He also ordered all military laboratories that have anthrax materials “to test all previously inactivated spore-forming anthrax in the inventory.”

All laboratories that may have received inactive anthrax from the Pentagon in the past have been advised to stop working with those samples until they receive further instruction from the Defense Department and the Centers for Disease Control.”

Last Friday, a private laboratory in Maryland informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it had received a live sample of anthrax. Further investigation determined that the batch of anthrax that had been the source of the shipment had not been fully irradiated in March 2014 and contained both live and inactivated anthrax spores, according to a Department of Defense official.

The laboratories have located their samples and sent them to the CDC for testing to determine if they too received live anthrax.

No workers who came into contact with the samples have exhibited any symptoms of anthrax infection, according to the Pentagon and the CDC.

However, as a protective measure, three lab workers in the United States and 22 military lab workers in South Korea are receiving antibiotic treatments, officials said.




“In light of the new information Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work ordered “a comprehensive review of DoD laboratory procedures, processes, and protocols associated with inactivating spore-forming anthrax." He also ordered all military la-boratories that have anthrax materials “to test all previously inactivated spore-forming anthrax in the inventory.” …. The Pentagon has ordered a comprehensive review of its laboratory facilities that handle anthrax after finding more labs in the United States that may have mistakenly received live anthrax, U.S. officials said. Any laboratories that may have received inactive anthrax samples from the Pentagon in the past have also been advised to stop working with those samples until they get more instruction from the Defense Department and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. …. . Further investigation determined that the batch of an-thrax that had been the source of the shipment had not been fully irradiated in March 2014 and contained both live and inactivated anthrax spores, according to a Department of Defense official.”

Go back to the blog several days ago on the subject of ongoing illegal military testing for the purpose of germ warfare. I took excerpts from a Wikipedia article on the US germ warfare programs to supplement the story. The news article is as follows:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-pentagons-shipment-of-live-anthrax-human-error/, Was Pentagon's shipment of live anthrax "human error"?, By CHIP REID CBS NEWS, May 28, 2015. That article quotes military sources as saying that “The anthrax spores, which were being studied in an effort to find better ways to defend against anthrax, ….” The Wikipedia article, however, says “In 1969, President Rich-ard Nixon ended all offensive (i.e., non-defensive) aspects of the U.S. bio-weapons program. In 1975 the U.S. ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Bio-logical Weapons Convention (BWC)—international treaties outlawing biological warfare. Recent U.S. biodefense programs, however, have raised concerns that the U.S. may be pursuing research that is outlawed by the BWC.”

One thing is clear – whether for offensive purposes or not, the US and other nations are actively studying anthrax still. They probably never stopped, despite the 1975 agreement. It makes me feel nervous and discouraged. It seems we have made no real progress as an advanced nation in too many ways. Some weapons are simply too in-tensely dangerous to consider using, and in this case even to hold. The lab workers probably didn’t purposely ship out live viruses, but they did somehow fail to use enough radiation on it to kill them. Moreover, I’m not convinced that the military labs were using live viruses simply to “study” them. That’s what happened in the wonderful book The Andromeda Strain. Sheer carelessness in a germ warfare set-ting caused a massive outbreak of disease because it “got out” of the lab.

I’m sorry to say that today’s news article on a comprehensive study of lab techniques doesn’t include the question of whether or not more advanced weapons are also be-ing tested, rather than how to resist them. I truly hope not, especially on President Obama’s watch. He’s too smart to willfully allow such a program, but of course if it was started during the Bush administration it may have powerful backers in Con-gress whom he has been unable to stop. I hope this doesn’t turn into a major scandal against him. I do think it’s probably simply a matter of carelessness in the lab that shipped the samples out. Human failure is an ever-present problem.

Saturday, May 30, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lane-splitting-road-legalization-california-state-assembly-bill-passes/

Motorcyclists may face new rules on California's roads
CBS NEWS
May 30, 2015

California is a step closer to becoming the first state to legalize "lane splitting," when a motorcycle rider drives between other vehicles on congested streets and freeways. The State Assembly has passed a bill making the practice legal, CBS News' Ben Tracy reports.

In most states, riders must stay in a marked lane, like a car. In California, riding the white lines is allowed but has never been regulated.

Now, the State Assembly has passed a bill that would put strict limits on lane-splitting speeds.

Motorcycles could travel up to 15 mph faster than the flow of traffic, up to a maximum overall speed of 50 mph.

Will Texas motorcyclists be allowed to "lane split"?

State Assemblyman Tom Lackey, a former California Highway Patrol officer, co-authored the bill and cites safety as a factor.

"By allowing them to move between vehicles in a safe manner lessens their likelihood of much more serious injury, and it also allows for the free-flow of traffic," he said.

Legalizing lane splitting is gaining support among riders.

"One of the main reasons we do it is to be safe," said motorcycle rider Sebastian Rodriguez. "If a car rear-ends a car, it's a bumper that gets broken. If a car rear-ends a motorcyclist, it could be a leg that gets broken."

Although studies indicate careful lane splitting is no more dangerous than other kinds of driving, accidents will happen. Motorcycle rider Robert Gutierrez admitted he couldn't steer clear of a collision in which he was involved.

"I was splitting lanes, and he was coming out, and I was like, 'Oh, should I avoid him or not?'" he said.

While Lackey said his bill moves riding in the right direction, many drivers remain skeptical.

"Accidents happen no matter what miles per hour you're going, so whether it's 15 or 50, if they're not checking the mirrors, you know, good luck," said motorist David Timmons. "You're tempting fate at that point."

Next stop, the State Senate. Lackey hopes the road rules will become law by 2016.

"This measure is so important because it will directly result in the saving of lives," Lackey said.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

Lane splitting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lane splitting refers to a two-wheeled vehicle moving between roadway lanes of vehicles that are proceeding in the same direction. More narrowly, it refers to overtaking slow or stopped vehicles by traveling between lanes.[1][2] It is also sometimes called lane sharing, whitelining,[3] filtering, or stripe-riding.[4]

Alternatively, lane splitting has been used to describe moving through traffic that is in motion. It is similar to filtering, or filtering forward, which is used to describe moving through traffic that is stopped.[5][6] When the space used is between two lines of vehicles, this is also known as lane splitting; however, filtering can be accomplished by using space on the outside edge of same-direction traffic as well. There can be significant savings of time by bypassing what otherwise would be obstructions.[7][8]

In the United States[edit]

Lane splitting by motorcycles is illegal in certain places, such as most US states with the sole exception being California, but widely used and legal in many other countries.[2] Additionally, the legality of lane splitting for motorcycles and bicycles is the same in some places, such as California,[9] but different in other places, such as Nebraska, where lane splitting is prohibited specifically for motorcycles and is therefore lawful for bicycles.[10]

Safety[edit]

Lane splitting is controversial in the United States,[18][19][20][21] and is sometimes an issue in other countries. Questions are debated as to whether or not it is legal, whether or not it should be legal, and whether or not it should be practiced regardless of legality. Bills to legalize lane splitting have been introduced in state legislatures around the US over the last twenty years but so far none has been enacted.[22][23][24][25][26][27]

Filtering forward, in stopped or extremely slow traffic, requires very slow speed and awareness that in a door zone, vehicle doors may unexpectedly open. Also, unexpected vehicle movements such as lane changes may occur with little warning. Buses and tractor-trailers require extreme care, as the cyclist may be nearly invisible to the drivers who may not expect someone to be filtering forward. To avoid a hook collision with a turning vehicle at an intersection after filtering forward to the intersection, cyclists are taught to either take a position directly in front of the stopped lead vehicle, or stay behind the lead vehicle. Cyclists should not stop directly at the passenger side of the lead vehicle, that being a blind spot.[28][29][30]

Research[edit]
Little safety research in the United States has directly examined the question of lane splitting. Preliminary findings from a University of California, Berkeley study were published in October, 2014 with a full report expected by the end of the year.[31] The European MAIDS report studied the causes of motorcycle accidents in four countries where it is legal and one where it is not, yet reached no conclusion as to whether it contributed to or prevented accidents.[4]

Proponents of lane splitting state the Hurt Report of 1981 reached the conclusion that lane splitting improves motorcycle safety by reducing rear end crashes.[21] Lane splitting supporters also state that the US DOT FARS database shows that fatalities from rear end collisions into motorcycles are 30% lower in California than in Florida or Texas, states with similar riding seasons and populations but which do not lane split.[32] No specifics are given about where this conclusion is found in the FARS system. The database is available online to the public.[33] The NHSTA does say, based on the Hurt Report, that lane splitting "slightly reduces" rear-end accidents, and is worthy of further study due to the possible congestion reduction benefits.[2]

Lane splitting is never mentioned anywhere in the Hurt Report, and all of the data was collected in California, so no comparison was made between of lane splitting vs. non-lane splitting. The Hurt Report ends with a list of 55 specific findings, such as "Fuel system leaks and spills are present in 62% of the motorcycle accidents in the post-crash phase. This represents an undue hazard for fire." None of these findings mentions lane splitting, or rear end collisions. The legislative and law enforcement advice that follows this list does not mention lane splitting or suggest laws be changed with regard to lane splitting.

In Europe, the MAIDS Report was conducted using Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) standards in 1999–2000 and collected data on over 900 motorcycle accidents in five countries, along with non-accident exposure data (control cases) to measure the contribution of different factors to accidents, in the same way as the Hurt Report. Four of the five countries where data was collected allow lane splitting, while one does not, yet none of the conclusions contained in the MAIDS Final Report note any difference in rear-end accidents or accidents during lane splitting. It is notable that the pre-crash motion of the motorcycle or scooter was lane-splitting in only 0.4% of cases, in contrast to the more common accident situations such as "Moving in a straight line, constant speed" 49.1% and "Negotiating a bend, constant speed" 12.1%. The motorcyclist was stopped in traffic prior to 2.8% of the accidents.[4]

Preliminary results from a study in the United Kingdom, conducted by the University of Nottingham for the Department for Transport, show that filtering is responsible for around 5% of motorcycle Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) accidents.[34] It also found that in these KSI cases the motorist is twice as likely to be at fault as the motorcyclist due to motorists "failing to take into account possible motorcycle riding strategies in heavy traffic".[34]




“In most states, riders must stay in a marked lane, like a car. In California, riding the white lines is allowed but has never been regulated. Now, the State Assembly has passed a bill that would put strict limits on lane-splitting speeds. Motorcycles could travel up to 15 mph faster than the flow of traffic, up to a maximum overall speed of 50 mph. …. Although studies indicate careful lane splitting is no more dangerous than other kinds of driving, accidents will happen. Motorcycle rider Robert Gutierrez admitted he couldn't steer clear of a collision in which he was involved. "I was splitting lanes, and he was coming out, and I was like, 'Oh, should I avoid him or not?'" he said. While Lackey said his bill moves riding in the right direction, many drivers remain skeptical.”

I didn’t realize at first exactly what the term “lane-splitting referred to. What I really hate is when motorcycles ride in the same lanes as the larger vehicles and especially when they erratically move back and forth in and out of lanes. One of the problems is that I can’t recall ever seeing a turn signal on a motorcycle, or a cyclist using the old fashioned hand signals to indicate that he wants to change lanes. I have also seen them a few times riding actually on the white line, which is what this article refers to. Good old Wikipedia has a good article on the subject, including what is legal in other countries. Very interesting. In the highly congested traffic areas such as Asia, riding down the center between lanes is legal and occurs frequently, and may move the traffic along better, according to Wiki. It is true that when a motorcycle has been riding on the white line it has definitely been more easily visible to me, whereas coming along on my left in my blind spot is much trickier if the biker is alone. A large group of cycles in the passing lane, of course, can’t be missed by the driver, which is the main reason I prefer for them to do it that way. My favorite way for motorbikes to ride is in groups which ride in a disciplined manner two by two in the left or passing lane, especially as they are almost always traveling faster than cars. They are more visible and can get the heck of my way faster that way. As you can probably tell, I would like to see them banned just like pit bulls. I hate the immature way bikers usually act, and I hate their noise. I would like to point out that I passed a motorcycle in town one day a few years ago and, wonder of wonders, it didn’t make a loud and obnoxious roar. Apparently it is possible for bike owners to get an effective muffler for their hogs, but it seems they aren’t required to do so by law. While California is making laws, they should make that one, too.





http://news.yahoo.com/dennis-hastert-allegedly-engaged-sexual-misconduct-during-time-202654802.html

Dennis Hastert Allegedly Engaged in Sexual Misconduct With Male Individual During Time as Teacher, Sources Say
By JOHN PARKINSON, ARLETTE SAENZ, JOSH MARGOLIN and MIKE LEVINE
May 29, 2015

Photograph -- Dennis Hastert Allegedly Engaged in Sexual Misconduct With Male Individual

The alleged "misconduct" referenced in the indictment of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is of a sexual nature involving a male individual, dating back to Hastert's time as a high school wrestling coach and history teacher in Yorkville, Illinois, sources with knowledge of the case told ABC News.

Related Stories --
Latest on Dennis Hastert: Statue to honor ex-speaker on hold Associated Press
Latest on Hastert: Boehner 'shocked' by reports Associated Press

Associates and former colleagues of Hastert expressed surprise and dismay today over allegations that he disbursed $1.7 million in hush money payments to conceal alleged misconduct from a period before he entered politics.

The school district that employed Hastert from 1965 to 1981 as a high school history teacher and wrestling coach noted it "was first made aware of any concerns regarding Mr. Hastert when the federal indictment was released" Thursday.

The indictment revealed that Hastert's time at Yorkville, in Illinois, is "material" to the allegations against him and the U.S. Attorney's investigation. The indictment itself does not mention what the alleged misconduct is.

A statement released by Yorkville Community Unit School District #115 added it "has no knowledge of Mr. Hastert's alleged misconduct, nor has any individual contacted the District to report any such misconduct. If requested to do so, the District plans to cooperate fully with the U.S. Attorney's investigation into this matter."

A spokesman for Dickstein Shapiro LLC, the lobbying firm that Hastert joined in 2008 after leaving Congress, confirmed in a brief statement that "Dennis Hastert has resigned from the firm."

Ron Safer, a former U.S. prosecutor in Chicago who is now in private practice, said the indictment "is weird for a hundred different reasons."

"If you are trying to keep everything secret, you don't indict," Safer told ABC News. "Because eventually this information will have to come out either when he pleads, because that’s public, and a factual basis will have to be revealed," Safer told ABC News. "I cannot imagine a judge sealing that. ... The public has a right to this kind of information. This guy is a public official."

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined comment directly on the indictment because the matter "falls into the category of an active Department of Justice investigation," but indicated that President Obama expects a comprehensive investigation.

"Even though Speaker Hastert served as the Speaker of House in the other party, there's nobody here who derives any pleasure from reading about the former speaker's legal troubles at this point," Earnest said. "As a more general matter, the responsibility that the Department of Justice has to make sure that our public officials are not violating the public's trust is an important responsibility. And again I won't speak to any of the specific cases but the president certainly believes they have an important job to do and expects them to do it."

Hastert is likely to be arraigned next week, but a date has not yet been set and is entirely up to the judge. The U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago confirmed that no bond has been set. Customarily, the arraignment happens within five days to a week of an indictment, and bond will be set when Hastert is arraigned, according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney.

Some of Hastert's former colleagues on Capitol Hill also expressed dismay over the allegations of misconduct.

"Anyone who knows Denny is shocked and confused by the recent news," Sen. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican who served in the House with Hastert. "The former speaker should be afforded, like any other American, his day in court to address these very serious accusations. This is a very troubling development that we must learn more about, but I am thinking of his family during this difficult time."

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who served in the House with Hastert from 1991 to 1995, said the allegation of misconduct spelled out in the indictment "doesn’t make any sense to me."

"I'm very disappointed in what I've heard and I want to find out more about it," Santorum told CNN today. "To see this kind of revelation is really upsetting. I feel bad for everybody involved."

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner declined to comment, stressing that Boehner will need more information before potentially commenting.

Margaret Matlock said she taught physical education at the high school during Hastert's time there and recalls he had a highly regarded reputation.

"Everybody adored him because he was the wrestling coach and they were always winning state champions," Matlock said.

David Corwin, whose son Scott Corwin was on one of the wrestling teams coached by Hastert, said the former speaker was a devoted coach and teacher.

"He was a good coach. He took them to wrestling camps in the off season and he did whatever he could for them. He was a good teacher. Couldn't have asked for a nicer guy," David Corwin said.

Hastert has not responded to multiple requests for comment by ABC News.

ABC News' Jordyn Phelps and Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.




“A statement released by Yorkville Community Unit School District #115 added it "has no knowledge of Mr. Hastert's alleged misconduct, nor has any individual contacted the District to report any such misconduct. If requested to do so, the District plans to cooperate fully with the U.S. Attorney's investigation into this matter." A spokesman for Dickstein Shapiro LLC, the lobbying firm that Hastert joined in 2008 after leaving Congress, confirmed in a brief statement that "Dennis Hastert has resigned from the firm." …. "If you are trying to keep everything secret, you don't indict," Safer told ABC News. "Because eventually this information will have to come out either when he pleads, because that’s public, and a factual basis will have to be revealed," Safer told ABC News. "I cannot imagine a judge sealing that. ... The public has a right to this kind of information. This guy is a public official." White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined comment directly on the indictment because the matter "falls into the category of an active Department of Justice investigation," but indicated that President Obama expects a comprehensive investigation. …. "Even though Speaker Hastert served as the Speaker of House in the other party, there's nobody here who derives any pleasure from reading about the former speaker's legal troubles at this point," Earnest said.”

I must admit I feel a bit sorry for Hastert. He wasn’t on my list of public enemies (such as Rick Perry for one), and, unless he was one of those who were involved with the pages in the scandal several years ago, he has been either very discreet about it or comparatively clean in his later years. I do blame him, however, for involving himself with underage youths while he was a teacher – thus in a position of power over them. That puts him in the position of being a victimizer rather than a lover.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/buzzfeed-potentially-several-alleged-victims-in-hasterts-past/ar-BBkoXpX?ocid=iehp

BuzzFeed: 'Potentially Several Alleged Victims' In Hastert's Past
Talking Points Memo
Catherine Thompson
May 29, 2015

An anonymous source familiar with the case of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said federal prosecutors knew of "prior misdeeds" Hastert committed against potentially several alleged victims that were not included in Thursday's indictment, BuzzFeed News reported Friday.

Around the same time and based on the accounts of two anonymous federal law enforcement officials, The Los Angeles Times reported that Hastert allegedly agreed to pay out $3.5 million in hush money to an unidentified man to compensate for sexual abuse that occurred while the former House speaker was working as a high school teacher and coach in Yorkville, Illinois.

BuzzFeed's anonymous source told the outlet that U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon considered additional charges against Hastert in regards to an "Individual B," which ultimately were not pursued. No further charges are expected to be filed, the source told BuzzFeed.

This article was written by Catherine Thompson from Talking Points Memo and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.




“An anonymous source familiar with the case of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said federal prosecutors knew of "prior misdeeds" Hastert committed against potentially several alleged victims that were not included in Thursday's indictment …” That does look as though the investigators were planning to do a white wash on the matter, doesn’t it? Good for Anonymous! “Around the same time and based on the accounts of two anonymous federal law enforcement officials, The Los Angeles Times reported that Hastert allegedly agreed to pay out $3.5 million in hush money to an unidentified man to compensate for sexual abuse …. U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon considered additional charges against Hastert in regards to an "Individual B," which ultimately were not pursued.” Perhaps they decided to spare Hastert in the case of victim number 2 because he is a wealthy and powerful Republican, or possibly because he was relatively well-liked in general. Personally, the photographs of his face on the news have been enough to make me feel some mercy toward him. He looks like a chastened man already. It’s like the wonderful book “The Scarlet Letter.” I think he will wear that letter the rest of his life.





http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/29/fox-amp-friends-doesnt-see-any-problem-with-sta/203815

Fox & Friends Doesn't See Any Problem With Statue That Displays Native Americans Kneeling To White Missionary
Blog ››› RACHEL CALVERT
May 29, 2015

Fox & Friends cried reverse racism when St. Louis University relocated what students and faculty considered a racially and culturally insensitive statue of Native Americans kneeling in front of a white missionary.

Following student and faculty complaints, St. Louis University relocated a statue depicting Native Americans being converted by Belgian missionary Fr. Pierre DeSmet, S.J. According to St. Louis Magazine, university officials pointed to concerns of cultural insensitivity and "white supremacy" in explaining the decision to move the statue inside the university's art museum:

Clayton Berry, SLU's assistant vice president for communications, tells SLM that the statue was moved to the university's art museum after staff voiced concerns.

"In more recent years, there have been some faculty and staff who have raised questions about whether the sculpture is culturally sensitive," Berry says. "Hearing that feedback, the decision was made to place the piece within the historical context of a collection that's on permanent display in our SLU Museum of Art."

University staff weren't alone in finding the statue of two Indian men submitting to a white man troubling. Two years before its removal, the student newspaper called it "the most controversial and misunderstood of all the artwork on the Saint Louis University campus." During Occupy SLU, the six-day student protest against racial inequality sparked by the Ferguson protests, Twitter user @EmmaculateJones shared photos of the statue, calling it a visual representation of "white supremacy on SLU campus."

However, Fox contributor Tucker Carlson called the relocation an "act of racism" on the May 29 edition of Fox & Friends, insisting to co-hosts that the statue's detractors were likely "wholly ignorant" of DeSmet's good works:

KILMEADE: It's a statue of Father Pierre Jean DeSmet ... And right there he is blessing American Indians back in his day. You know why? He was a Belgian Catholic priest who was able to convert countless members of American [[-]] Indians back in that day, and the American Indian community embraced him and his legacy. And among his good friends was actually Sitting Bull.

[...]

CARLSON: Despite those facts, of which I think the student body is likely wholly ignorant, the statue has been removed and shuttled off to a museum where it will be shown with the appropriate cultural context. Why? Because he was a white supremacist? No. Because he was white. His skin color is itself considered so offensive by the school that this statue can no longer be on display.

[...]

KILMEADE: Did anyone even Google this?

[...]

HASSELBECK: I mean, just do your homework! He was a friend to that community, reached out, and because of him a major treaty was signed. And after he died, only then did things get even more violent. He was the peacekeeper between the two groups.

This is hardly the first time that Fox News has brandished supposed reverse discrimination to demean attempts at correcting actual injustice.



http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/tucker_carlsons_downward_spiral/

Tucker Carlson’s downward spiral
Alex Pareen
April 26, 2012

Alex Pareene's annual Hack List is so popular -- and useful -- we thought we should spread it out over the year. This is the first in a regular feature taking a deeper look at our media's most pernicious hacks, which we'll rank in order at year's end.
In many ways Tucker Carlson’s a better symbol of the pathetic state of what passes for conservative journalism than even Glenn Beck or the late Andrew Breitbart, to name two of his contemporaries with a much larger following. Glenn Beck started as a no-account shock jock and is now a no-account Internet show host. Breitbart at least went from Drudge lackey to successful right-wing media mogul. Carlson, though, began his career in the most respectable fashion possible and has spent the ensuing decades gradually lowering himself into the gutter. His story illustrates why we can’t have a responsible or at least slightly less hysterical conservative media.

The Daily Caller, the site he launched with a promise to offer a new model for conservative journalism, is primarily a catalog of sleazy traffic-baiting aggregated Web garbage (“Top 10: Most beautiful ‘most beautiful’ women [SLIDESHOW]“), ancient relics of online commentary with nowhere else left to publish (Ann Coulter, Mickey Kaus), and overblown scandal-mongering headlines that promise much more than they can deliver. In other words it is like a mean-spirited parody of a conservative version of the pre-AOL Huffington Post, with a healthy dose, recently, of attention-grabbing race baiting. This is not the sort of thing Carlson used to be known for.




“According to St. Louis Magazine, university officials pointed to concerns of cultural insensitivity and "white supremacy" in explaining the decision to move the statue inside the university's art museum: Clayton Berry, SLU's assistant vice president for communications, tells SLM that the statue was moved to the university's art museum after staff voiced concerns. "In more recent years, there have been some faculty and staff who have raised questions about whether the sculpture is culturally sensitive," Berry says. "Hearing that feedback, the decision was made to place the piece within the historical context of a collection that's on permanent display in our SLU Museum of Art." …. Two years before its removal, the student newspaper called it "the most controversial and misunderstood of all the artwork on the Saint Louis University campus." During Occupy SLU, the six-day student protest against racial inequality sparked by the Ferguson protests ….

William F. Buckley, Jr, Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlton all have one thing in common. They are all fiercely pretentious and utterly devoid of anything useful to say. They are intelligent, but like certain criminals, they use their mind for evil. "Nuff said!”




WATER WARS?


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/29/media-pick-apart-anti-immigrant-groups-ad-blami/203820

Media Pick Apart Anti-Immigrant Group's Ad Blaming California Water Shortage On Immigration
Blog ››› CRISTINA LOPEZ
May 29, 2015

Univision and the Los Angeles Times have thoroughly debunked an ad by the anti-immigrant group Californians For Population Stabilization (CAPS) that blames California's drought-induced water shortage on immigration.

Although CAPS presents itself as an organization focused on "preserv[ing] the environment," numerous experts have pointed out that the group disingenuously uses environmental concerns to promote an anti-immigrant agenda. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has described CAPS as "a nativist organization masquerading as an environmental group." Similarly, Huffington Post reported that the executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC) remarked of CAPS: "They're basically trying to find any way to spin their anti-immigrant vitriol, so hey, why not choose the environment?" And NBC News reported that "[t]he National Council of La Raza said CAPS can say their concern is the environment, but that it is actually an anti-immigrant group."

According to SPLC, CAPS is part of an anti-immigration network that includes several organizations that have been labeled as "hate groups." Further, SPLC notes that CAPS has received funding from the Pioneer Fund, which has bankrolled "leading Anglo-American race scientists." The California drought is not the first example of CAPS exploiting a crisis in order to advance its anti-immigrant agenda -- in 2011, the group used California's unemployment rate to advocate for "slow[ing] legal immigration."

CAPS' television ad that plays on concerns about the drought features a young boy asking, "[i]f Californians are having fewer children, why isn't there enough water?" On the May 27 edition of Univision's Noticiero Univision, correspondent Luis Megid interviewed San Francisco State University professor Oswaldo Garcia about the ad:

Garcia, a meteorology professor and tropical climatology expert, dismissed CAPS' claims. He noted that although California's population has grown, 80 percent of the state's developed water supply is used for agricultural -- not residential -- purposes.

The Los Angeles Times also rebutted CAPS in both a news article and column. Addressing CAPS' claims in a May 24 article, the Times reported:

Some drought experts have taken issue with [CAPS'] claims, pointing out that the majority of the state's water supports agriculture.

Blaming the drought on immigrants "doesn't fit the facts," said William Patzert, a climatologist from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The drought is caused by meager snowpack and poor planning, he said, "not because the immigrants are drinking too much water or taking too many showers.

Others point out that many immigrants probably use less water than the average California resident because they tend to live in multi-family dwellings, not higher-consuming single-family homes.

"It's unlikely that the 'burden' of immigrants is very significant," said Stephanie Pincetl, professor in residence at the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA."

Additionally, in a May 26 column, the Times' Michael Hiltzik wrote that CAPS was "exploit[ing]" the drought by "immigrant bashing," and added that "pointing the finger at immigrants" is "cynical, dishonest and factually incorrect." Hiltzik noted that even with population growth, "a sharp reduction in urban per capital water use" has allowed the state's total water consumption to go down (emphasis added):

The truth is that California has been able to sustain that huge increase in population without a commensurate increase in water consumption--actually, with a decrease in water consumption. In 1990, when the census placed the state's population at 29.8 million, the state's freshwater withdrawals came to 35.1 billion gallons per day, according to the authoritative U.S. Geological Survey. In 2010, with a population of 37.3 million, that state drew 31.1 billion gallons per day.

How did that happen? Chiefly through a sharp reduction in urban per capital water use, which has been falling steadily since the mid-1990s, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, and especially in the populous coastal zone.

CAPS' anti-immigration claims, which were recently echoed by the National Review, are reminiscent of other conservative media outlets that have used the California drought as an opportunity to baselessly attack environmental policies.




“Univision and the Los Angeles Times have thoroughly debunked an ad by the anti-immigrant group Californians For Population Stabilization (CAPS) that blames California's drought-induced water shortage on immigration. Although CAPS presents itself as an organization focused on "preserv[ing] the environment," numerous experts have pointed out that the group disingenuously uses environmental concerns to promote an anti-immigrant agenda. …. According to SPLC, CAPS is part of an anti-immigration network that includes several organizations that have been labeled as "hate groups." Further, SPLC notes that CAPS has received funding from the Pioneer Fund, which has bankrolled "leading Anglo-American race scientists." …. in 2011, the group used California's unemployment rate to advocate for "slow[ing] legal immigration." CAPS' television ad that plays on concerns about the drought features a young boy asking, "[i]f Californians are having fewer children, why isn't there enough water?" …. Garcia, a meteorology professor and tropical climatology expert, dismissed CAPS' claims. He noted that although California's population has grown, 80 percent of the state's developed water supply is used for agricultural -- not residential -- purposes. …. Blaming the drought on immigrants "doesn't fit the facts," said William Patzert, a climatologist from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The drought is caused by meager snowpack and poor planning, he said, "not because the immigrants are drinking too much water or taking too many showers. …. Additionally, in a May 26 column, the Times' Michael Hiltzik wrote that CAPS was "exploit[ing]" the drought by "immigrant bashing," and added that "pointing the finger at immigrants" is "cynical, dishonest and factually incorrect." Hiltzik noted that even with population growth, "a sharp reduction in urban per capital water use" has allowed the state's total water consumption to go down (emphasis added) …. CAPS' anti-immigration claims, which were recently echoed by the National Review, are reminiscent of other conservative media outlets that have used the California drought as an opportunity to baselessly attack environmental policies.”

It’s Hillary Clinton’s vast rightwing conspiracy again, and it’s led by the Koch brothers and other large corporations including farms like Monsanto. They just don’t want to reduce our carbon footprint or save water, or grow crops that are actually adapted to a dry climate, except maybe for the vineyards. I understand that wine is best made from grapes raised in dry places.

They are, of course, also more often racist and Xenophobic than modern-day progressives are. Most people in the US are actually limited educationally and emotionally, especially when they are highly doctrinaire in their religious beliefs. One characteristic of modern fundamentalist Christianity is a high degree of inflexibility and exclusiveness. We are a population derived from “the dregs” of Europe in some ways, in that most of our early settlers were relatively poor and uneducated. They came here to escape severe and intractable poverty in Europe’s cities. Many of them were, in fact, criminals, with certain states being set up as penal colonies. They were the class that in earlier times would have been called “peasants.” The land grants, when given to more wealthy people generally went to the youngest sons and others who weren’t going to inherit the bulk of the family fortune. They also were less liberal in their religious views, with “low church” groups and religious radicals dominating. They could read and write, but they had to work for a living. They had land, but they weren’t gentlemen farmers, except in the slave-holding South. I heard years ago that present day North Carolina was “a Vale of Humility between Two Mountains of Conceit. George Washington, the wealthy gentleman farmer, lived in Virginia.

It’s clear to me that one of the main things that will happen in a progressively warming environment is that there will be more drought, and as Patzert said, a reduction in snowfall. There is a hopeful article today about El Nino possibly causing more rainfall on the West Coast this year. I hope so, but if it all comes at the rate of 10” per hour as it has been in Texas there will be the same disastrous flooding and mudslides, so that’s not good. It would be helpful if a great many new deep and cement-lined reservoirs were built so that when the rain is coming down at those huge rates it could be caught and preserved. See the interesting article about the desert city of Petra and it’s system of underground cisterns. Some of the rainfall trapped there would become runoff, but some would be saved for drinking and bathing. I include the whole article because Petra is not only beautiful, it is a technological marvel which was carved out of the “living rock.” I think our modern day engineers might look at it as a way of developing our drought-resistant new cities of the future.





http://nabataea.net/waterw.html
Petra, Capital City of Nabatea

Throughout the city of Petra are hundreds of underground water cisterns. Every possible drop of rainwater, as well as the water piped into the city was stored and used later.

You might also want to check out the paper on Nabataean Water Collection

Extended Abstract from: Petra Water Systems : The water supply and distribution system of the Nabataean city of Petra in southwestern Jordan has been explored and together with data extracted from excavation sources, key cisterns, dams, springs, channels and pipelines comprising the water distribution system have been placed on a site map [Figure 1, The Water Supply and Distribution System of the Nabataean City of Petra (Jordan), 300 BC-AD 300, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15:1, 93-109, 2005]. Analysis of the system indicates exploitation of all possible water resources using management techniques that balance reservoir storage capacity release with continuous flow pipeline systems to maintain a constant water supply throughout the wet and dry seasons of the year.

The origins of Petra began ca. 300 BCE. Urban development progressed with later Roman administration of the city starting at 106 CE; final Byzantine occupation to the 7th century CE completed site occupation history. Trade networks that extended throughout much of the ancient orient and Mediterranean world intersected at Petra and brought not only strategic and economic prominence but also impetus to develop water resources fully to sustain increasing population and city elaboration demands. City development was influenced by artistic, cultural and technological borrowings from Seleucid, Syro-Phoenician, Greek, Roman and Eastern civilizations through trade route associations; the Petra water distribution system showed indications of hydraulic technologies derived from these contacts as well as original technical innovations that helped to maintain the high living standard of city dwellers throughout the centuries.

Analysis of Nabataean piping networks indicates that design criteria are employed that promote stable flows within piping, use sequential particle settling basins to purify potable water supplies, promote open channel flows within piping at near critical (maximum) flow rates that avoid leakage associated with pressurized systems and are designed to match the spring supply rate to the maximum carrying capacity of a pipeline. Estimates of the total city water input from multiple piping networks derived from spring sources and stored cistern water supplies (including latest discoveries of subterranean water cisterns) are made and compared to the water supply rate of ancient Rome in the same era; although a fraction of Rome's supply rate, the amounts are more than adequate to provide for the hygiene and practical needs of the city.

New discoveries related to maximizing water flow rates by internal piping wall surface roughness patterns appear to predate later discoveries in western science by some 20 centuries. This, and other demonstrations of engineering capability in hydraulic system design indicates a high degree of skill in solving complex hydraulics problems to ensure a stable water supply and may be posited as a key reason behind the many centuries of flourishing city life.Extended abstract from: Petra Water Systems by C. R. Ortloff.

The full article may be viewed in pdf format at the following website:
http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=302831

.









Friday, May 29, 2015


News Clips For The Day

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-paid-millions-hush-money-indictment-says/

Ex-House speaker accused of paying $3.5M in hush money
CBS NEWS
May 29, 2015

A stunning indictment has raised questions about alleged misdeeds by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

The allegations include violations of federal banking laws and lying to the FBI. They also claim he paid hush money to cover up a relationship prosecutors say was improper, but the nature of that alleged misconduct remains a mystery, reports CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford.

According to the indictment, the former House Speaker agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2010 to a person identified only as "Individual A," in an effort to "compensate and conceal" Hastert's "prior misconduct."

The indictment doesn't reveal details of the misconduct, but it does note the two have known each other for "most of Individual A's life" and that the individual is from the same Illinois town where from 1965 to 1981 "Hastert was a high school teacher and ‎wrestling coach."

To conceal the relationship, prosecutors allege that Hastert, over a four year period, withdrew a total of $1.7 million from a number of his personal bank accounts to give to Individual A.

According to the indictment, at first, he took out large amounts -- "$50,000 withdrawals of cash" on 15 occasions. But when "bank representatives questioned" him in 2012, "Hastert began withdrawing cash in increments of less than $10,000" because banks are required by federal law to report anything larger.

In 2014 the FBI questioned Hastert about his withdrawals, and he allegedly lied, telling agents "Yeah... I kept the cash. That's what I'm doing," explaining that he did not trust the banking system.

The allegations stunned Hastert's former staffers and people on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

Hastert is the longest-serving Republican House Speaker in history, a job that put him second in line for the presidency.

He was seen as being above scandal, says Crawford.

It was his clean image that led Republicans to tap him as Speaker in 1999, during a turbulent period for the GOP. Newt Gingrich had been ousted from office over an ethics violation, and the man who was to set to replace him as speaker, Bob Livingston, admitted to an extra-marital affair.

"They turned to Denny Hastert because he was the affable, easy to get along guy," Washington Post congressional reporter Paul Kane said. "This has shocked Democrats, Republicans, lobbyists, consultants really everybody, it's really rocked this town."




“The allegations include violations of federal banking laws and lying to the FBI. They also claim he paid hush money to cover up a relationship prosecutors say was improper, but the nature of that alleged misconduct remains a mystery, reports CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford. According to the indictment, the former House Speaker agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2010 to a person identified only as "Individual A," in an effort to "compensate and conceal" Hastert's "prior misconduct." The indictment doesn't reveal details of the misconduct, but it does note the two have known each other for "most of Individual A's life" and that the individual is from the same Illinois town where from 1965 to 1981 "Hastert was a high school teacher and ‎wrestling coach." …. According to the indictment, at first, he took out large amounts -- "$50,000 withdrawals of cash" on 15 occasions. But when "bank representatives questioned" him in 2012, "Hastert began withdrawing cash in increments of less than $10,000" because banks are required by federal law to report anything larger. …. In 2014 the FBI questioned Hastert about his withdrawals, and he allegedly lied, telling agents "Yeah... I kept the cash. That's what I'm doing," explaining that he did not trust the banking system. The allegations stunned Hastert's former staffers and people on both sides of the aisle in Washington.”

“… The indictment doesn’t reveal details of the misconduct…” The following Wikipedia biography on Hastert mentions a scandal which could apply that came to light in 2006 over sexual harassment or worse toward congressional pages -- whose sex is not disclosed -- by Foley, which Hastert strongly denied covering up. He claims he didn’t’ know about it until 2006 when it made the news. It would be interesting if Hastert himself was implicated in the same sexual matters. I don’t think he would have paid such a large amount of blackmail over something the he didn’t personally do. Why cover up for Foley in such a costly manner?

Hastert had always had a “squeaky clean” personal reputation, but he was clearly trying to pay a huge amount of money to a blackmailer. That doesn’t sound like innocence to me. This news article said nothing about the nature of the scandal he was trying to hide, but I’m curious – was it bribes, partnering with organized crime or sex? He is “a family man” but that wouldn’t be the first time a married man was gay or more commonly simply a womanizer, a scandal either way.

From Wikipedia comes this statement: “In a December 2006, the House Ethics Committee determined that Hastert and other congressional leaders were "willfully ignorant" in responding to early warnings of the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, but did not violate any House rules.[43][44] In a committee statement, Kirk Fordham, who was Foley's chief of staff until 2005, said that he had alerted Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, to Foley's inappropriate advances toward congressional pages in 2002 or 2003, asking congressional leadership to intervene.[44] Then-House Majority Leader John Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee chair Thomas M. Reynolds stated that they told Hastert about Foley's conduct in spring 2005.[44] A Hastert spokesman stated that "what Kirk Fordham said did not happen."[44] Hastert also stated that he could not recall conversations with Boehner and Reynolds, and that he did not learn of Foley's conduct until late September 2006, when the affair became public.[44]”

I am personally relieved that Hastert is a Republican. So often when there is a sex scandal the politician is a Democrat. Republicans are more likely to come under fire for financial scandals, though of course both parties are capable of either sin/crime. Human nature is not “squeaky clean,” no matter what one’s reputation is, and great power tends to produce corruption. Most crimes go undetected in high office, I’m afraid. I’m always glad when something like this is uncovered and aired, however, because that does clean things up a little bit. Too many politicians have access to big money pools for payoffs which makes the public distrust their leaders. That’s unfortunate because it means that those “Militiamen” out west who hate all government have some excuse for their beliefs. However, a large and powerful government is necessary in a society and economy the size of ours in the US. Thinking that we can do without laws, legislatures and taxes is not only ridiculously simplistic thinking, it is really dangerous. Our society wouldn’t last a year without our structure of laws, world cooperation and public funding. There would be no schools, very few jobs, no police forces except for Wild West style posses and hangings, no political organization, no laws, no relief for the poor and disabled, and no justice. We would become a police state in no time, or simply a chaotic mess. At that point I would get in my old Honda and drive across the border to Canada. I don’t believe that they would be infected there by the right wing hysteria which the Tea Party has initiated here. The Brits do tend to have some common sense.

See the biography of Hastert from Wikipedia below. He made a rapid rise to power, but not without his share of scandals.


http://www.bing.com/search?q=Dennis%20hastert%20republican&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=dennis%20hastert%20republican&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=1a43ea4aa34e479f958ade7211bde967

Dennis Hastert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Dennis "Denny" Hastert (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American politician, lobbyist, and member of the Republican Party who was the 59th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, serving from 1999 to 2007. He represented Illinois's 14th congressional district for twenty years, 1987 to 2007. He is the longest-serving Republican Speaker in history.

On May 28, 2015, Hastert was indicted by federal prosecutors, who allege that he evaded the requirement that banks report cash transactions over US$10,000, and made false statements to the FBI about his withdrawals, in a hush money scheme.[2][3][4][5]

Early life and education[edit]

Hastert was born on January 2, 1942, in Aurora, Illinois, the eldest of three sons of Naomi (née Nussle) and Jack Hastert.[6][7] Hastert is of Luxembourgish and Norwegian descent on his father's side, and of German descent on his mother's.[8]

Hastert grew up in a rural farming community. His middle-class family owned a farm supply business and a family farm; Hastert bagged and hauled feed and performed farm chores.[7][9] As a young man, Hastert also worked shifts in the family's Plainfield, Illinois restaurant, The Clock Tower, where he was a fry cook.[7][10] Hastert became a born-again Christian as a teenager.[7] Hastert attended Oswego High School, where he was a star wrestler and football player.[7][9]

Hastert briefly attended North Central College, but later transferred to Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian liberal arts college.[9]He was also a member of the FarmHouse Fraternity. Jim Parnalee where he also was a member of the FarmHouse Fraternity, Hastert's roommate at North Central who transferred with him to Wheaton, was the school's first student to be killed in Vietnam; it was reported that in 1999 that Hastert continues to visit Parnalee's family each year in Michigan.[9] Because of a wrestling injury, Hastert never served in the military. In 1964, Hastert graduated from Wheaton with a bachelor's degree in economics.[7][9] In 1967, he received his master's degree in philosophy of education from Northern Illinois University.[7] In his first year of graduate school, Hastert spent three months in Japan as part of the People to People Student Ambassador Program.[11] One of Hastert's fellow group members was Tony Podesta (then the president of the Young Democrats at University of Illinois at Chicago Circle).[12]

Early career, rise to power, and political positions[edit]

While attending NIU, Hastert became a government and history teacher at Yorkville High School.[7] He also served as a coach, leading the school's wrestling team to the 1976 state title and later being named "Illinois Coach of the Year."[7]

Hastert taught and coached at the high school for more than twelve years.[7] He married a fellow teacher at the high school, Jean, with whom he had two sons, Joshua and Ethan.[9] He considered applying to become an assistant principal at the school, but then decided to enter politics, although at the time "he knew nothing about politics."[7] Hastert approached Phyllis Oldenburg, a Republican operative in Kendall County, seeking advice on running for a seat in the Illinois Legislature.[7]

Hastert lost a 1980 Republican primary for the Illinois House of Representatives, but showed a talent for campaigning, and after the election volunteered for an influential state senator, John E. Grotberg.[7] In the summer of 1981, however, a state House member had become terminally ill, and Republican party bosses selected Hastert as the successor.[9] The first round of balloting resulted in a tie, but Hastert was chosen after Grotberg interceded on Hastert's behalf.[9] In the state House, Hastert served on the Appropriations Committee.[9] He gained a reputation as a dealmaker and party leader known for "asking his colleagues to write their spending requests on a notepad so he could carry them into negotiating sessions" and holding early-morning pre-meetings to organize talking points.[9]

Meanwhile, Hastert's political mentor Grotberg had been elected to Congress as the representative from Illinois's 14th district, but fell ill with cancer in 1986, and was unable to run for a second term.[7][9] Hastert was nominated to replace him; in the general election in November 1986, he defeated Democratic candidate Mary Lou Kearns, the Kane County coroner, in a relatively close race.[7][9]

Hastert developed a close relationship with Tom DeLay, the House majority whip, and was widely seen as DeLay's deputy.[9] Hastert and Delay first worked together in 1989, on Edward Madigan's unsuccessful race against Gingrich for minority whip. Hastert later managed DeLay's successful campaign to become whip.[9] In September 1998, the two added an extra $250,000 to the defense budget for "pharmacokinetics research."[9] The Washington Post reported that "the money, it turned out, paid for an Army experiment with nicotine chewing gum manufactured by a company in Hastert's district."[9]

On the eve of his elevation to speaker, Hastert was described as "deeply conservative at heart" and a "hide-bound, rock-ribbed Illinois conservative."[13] The Associated Press reported: "He is an evangelical Christian who opposes abortion and advocates lower taxes, a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution and the death penalty. And he spearheaded the GOP's highly partisan fight against using sampling techniques to take the next census. Such groups as the National Right to Life Committee, the Christian Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association all gave his voting record perfect scores of 100. The American Conservative Union gave him an 88. Meanwhile, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the American Civil Liberties Union and labor organizations such as the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters each gave Hastert zero points. The League of Conservation Voters rated him a 13."[13]

Hastert criticized the Clinton administration's plans on how to conduct the 2000 Census using sampling techniques.[9] Hastert was a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and in 1993 voted to approve the trade pact.[14]

Hastert was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs and "House Republicans' leader on anti-narcotics efforts."[9][15] In this role, he criticized the Clinton administration for what he believed was insufficient funding for drug interdiction efforts[9][15] and led a "crusade against federal money for needle-exchange programs."[13]

Hastert opposed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold), the landmark campaign finance reform law.[13] In 2001, during the debate on the bill, Hastert criticized Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, saying that McCain had "bullied" House Republicans by sending them letters in support of his campaign-finance reform proposals.[16] Hastert also expressed the view that the act has "constitutional flaws."[17] Hastert has also called the legislation "the worst thing that ever happened to Congress."[18]

Tenure as speaker[edit]

In accepting the position, Hastert broke with tradition by delivering his acceptance speech from the floor, and by allowing House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri to preside briefly. Hastert pledged to work for bipartisanship, saying: "Solutions to problems cannot be found in a pool of bitterness. They can be found in an environment in which we trust one another's word; where we generate heat and passion, but where we recognize that each member is equally important to our overall mission of improving the life of the American people."

In November 2004, however, Hastert instituted what became known as the Hastert Rule (or "majority of the majority" rule), which was an informal, self-imposed political practice of allowing the House to vote only on bills supported by the majority of its Republican members. The practice received criticism as an unduly partisan measure both at the time it was adopted and in the subsequent years.[21][22] In 2013, after leaving office, Hastert disowned the policy, saying that "there is no Hastert Rule" and that the "rule" was more of a principle that the majority party should follow its own policies.[23] The same year, the Hastert aide who coined the phrase also stated that the stricture was not workable.[24] In any case, a number of bills have since passed the House without the support of a majority of the majority party in the House, as shown by a list compiled by The New York Times.[25]

Although by tradition, Hastert was the leader of the House Republicans, he adopted a much lower profile in the media than conventional wisdom would suggest for a Speaker. This led to accusations that he was only a figurehead for DeLay.[26]

Controversies during term as speaker[edit]

Hastert was known as a frequent critic of Bill Clinton, and immediately upon taking speakership "played a lead role" in the impeachment of the president.[37]

In March 1999, soon after Hastert's elevation to the speakership, the Washington Post, in a front-page story, reported that Hastert "has begun offering industry lobbyists the kind of deal they like: private audiences where, for a price, they can voice their views on what kind of agenda the 106th Congress should pursue."[9] Hastert's style and extensive fundraising led Common Cause to critique the "pay-to-play system" in Congress.[9]

In 2000 Hastert announced he would support an Armenian Genocide resolution. Analysts noted that at the time there was a tight congressional race in California, in which the large Armenian community might be important in favor of the Republican incumbent. The resolution, vehemently opposed by Turkey, had passed the Human Rights Subcommittee of the House and the International Relations Committee but Hastert, although first supporting it, withdrew the resolution on the eve of the full House vote. He explained this by saying that he had received a letter from Bill Clinton asking him to withdraw it, because it would harm U.S. interests. Even though there is no evidence that a payment was made, an official at the Turkish Consulate is said to have claimed in one recording, that was translated by Sibel Edmonds, that the price for Hastert to withdraw the Armenian Genocide resolution would have been at least $500,000.[38][39]

In a December 2006, the House Ethics Committee determined that Hastert and other congressional leaders were "willfully ignorant" in responding to early warnings of the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, but did not violate any House rules.[43][44] In a committee statement, Kirk Fordham, who was Foley's chief of staff until 2005, said that he had alerted Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, to Foley's inappropriate advances toward congressional pages in 2002 or 2003, asking congressional leadership to intervene.[44] Then-House Majority Leader John Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee chair Thomas M. Reynolds stated that they told Hastert about Foley's conduct in spring 2005.[44] A Hastert spokesman stated that "what Kirk Fordham said did not happen."[44] Hastert also stated that he could not recall conversations with Boehner and Reynolds, and that he did not learn of Foley's conduct until late September 2006, when the affair became public.[44]

In 2005, following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Hastert told a Illinois newspaper that "It looks like a lot of that place [referring to New Orleans] could be bulldozed" and stated that spending billions of dollars to rebuild the devastated city "doesn't make sense to me." [40] The remarks enraged Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, who demanded an immediate apology and stated that Hastert's comments were "absolutely unthinkable for a leader in his position."[40] Former President Bill Clinton, responding to the remarks, stated that had they been in the same place when the remarks were made, "I'm afraid I would have assaulted him."[40] After the furor caused by the remarks, Hastert issued a statement saying he was not "advocating that the city be abandoned or relocated" and later issued another statement saying that "Our prayers and sympathies continue to be with the victims of Hurricane Katrina."[40

A September 2005 article in Vanity Fair revealed that during her work, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds had heard Turkish wiretap targets boast of covert relations with Hastert. The article states, "the targets reportedly discussed giving Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in surreptitious payments in exchange for political favors and information."[38] A spokesman for Hastert later denied the claims, relating them to the Jennifer Aniston-Brad Pitt breakup.[41] Following his congressional career, Hastert received a $35,000 per month contract lobbying on behalf of Turkey.[42]

In 2006, Hastert became embroiled in controversy over a $207 million federal earmark (inserted in the 2005 omnibus highway bill) for the "Prairie Parkway," a proposed expressway running through his district.[45][46] The Sunlight Foundation accused Hastert of failing to disclose that the construction of the highway would benefit a land investment that Hastert and his wife made in nearby land in 2004 and 2005. Hastert turned a $1.8 million profit from the land deal in under two years.[45][46] Hastert denied any wrongdoing.[45] In October 2006, Norman Ornstein and Scott Lilly wrote that the Prairie Parkway affair was "worse than FoleyGate" and called for the speaker's resignation.[47]

In 2012, after Hastert had departed from Congress, the highway project was killed after federal regulators retracted the 2008 approval of an environmental impact statement for the project and agreed to an Illinois Department of Transportation request to redirect the funds for other projects.[48] Environmentalists, who opposed the project, celebrated the cancellation of the project.[48]

Indictment[edit]

On May 28, 2015, an indictment of Hastert by a federal grand jury was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.[2][68][69] The day the indictment was unsealed, Hastert resigned his lobbyist position at Dickstein Shapiro, and his biography was removed from the firm's website.[70][71][72]

The indictment charged Hastert with illegally structuring the withdrawal of $952,000 in cash in order to evade the requirement that banks report cash transactions over US$10,000, and making false statements to the FBI about his withdrawals. The indictment alleges that Hastert agreed to make payments of $3.5 million in "hush money" to an unnamed subject (identified in the indictment only as an "Individual A" who was known to Hastert for "most of Individual A's life"), who according to Yahoo News was a person from the town where Hastert had been a longtime high school teacher, to "compensate for and conceal [Hastert's] prior misconduct."[73][68][2] Federal authorities began investigating his withdrawals in 2013.[74]

According to federal prosecutors, each charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.[71]





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/phoenix-man-targets-mosque-with-muhammad-cartoon-contest/

Phoenix mosque to be target of Muhammad cartoon contest
CBS NEWS
May 29, 2015

Play VIDEO
Islamic extremists open fire outside Muhammad cartoon contest
Play VIDEO
FBI sent warning ahead of Muhammad art attack


PHOENIX -- Local police and the FBI say they're aware that a man is planning a rally outside a Phoenix mosque during Friday prayer services that will include a contest of drawings depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

On May 3, two men tried to ambush participants at a similar event in the Dallas suburb of Garland, Tex., shooting a security guard before they were killed by police.

Jon Ritzheimer told CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO he organized the rally outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix because the Texas gunmen had worshiped there.

Describing himself as "just a blatant, blunt, outspoken Marine," Ritzheimer told the station the Texas shooting struck a nerve.

"I appreciate the mosque did come out and they condemned the two gunman," he said. "They've come out and they've condemned ISIS."

According to Ritzheimer, the mosque hasn't done enough since the attack.

"People call them an extremist. To me, it's just a Muslim following their book as it's written," he said.

"These are the measures that we have to take to expose the true colors of this religion," Ritzheimer continued. "Unfortunately, we have to hold the cartoon contest, as silly as it sounds, to be able to show the true colors of Islam."

Ritzheimer told the station he considers Islam an "intolerant religion."

"Here in America, we have the freedom of speech and it's under attack from Islam," he said, adding that he proudly wears a T-shirt that reads "F--- Islam."

"There's going to be plenty of them," Ritzheimer said of the shirts. "I have a whole fresh order coming to the rally."

Ritzheimer insisted the event is not intended to stir up trouble.

"I let them [the mosque] know that we're coming on that day and that I hope everything can remain peaceful," he said.

Usama Shami, president of the Phoenix Islamic Center, declined to be interviewed on camera, but told KPHO he knew about the planned protest. Shami said that as long as the protesters stay off the property, they can rally all they want.

When asked by KPHO, Phoenix police and the FBI would not disclose what type of law enforcement presence there might be at the event.

Phoenix police said in a statement, "We consistently monitor social media and have been in contact with representatives from the mosque and known event organizers. We will have an appropriate presence at the event but specific details will not be provided."




"Local police and the FBI say they're aware that a man is planning a rally outside a Phoenix mosque during Friday prayer services that will include a contest of draw-ings depicting the Prophet Muhammad. On May 3, two men tried to ambush partici-pants at a similar event in the Dallas suburb of Garland, Tex., shooting a security guard before they were killed by police. Jon Ritzheimer told CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO he organized the rally outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix be-cause the Texas gunmen had worshiped there. …. According to Ritzheimer, the mosque hasn't done enough since the attack. "People call them an extremist. To me, it's just a Muslim following their book as it's written," he said. "These are the measures that we have to take to expose the true colors of this religion," Ritzheimer continued. "Unfortunately, we have to hold the cartoon contest, as silly as it sounds, to be able to show the true colors of Islam." Ritzheimer told the station he considers Islam an "intolerant religion." …. Usama Shami, president of the Phoenix Islamic Center, declined to be interviewed on camera, but told KPHO he knew about the planned protest. Shami said that as long as the protesters stay off the property, they can rally all they want. …. Phoenix police said in a statement, "We consistently moni-tor social media and have been in contact with representatives from the mosque and known event organizers. We will have an appropriate presence at the event but spe-cific details will not be provided."

I personally do not believe that anybody should harass a group over their religious beliefs in this country. I was sorry about what happened to Charlie Hebdo in France, but I consider the attack on them to be foolishly, purposely and unfairly provoked, just like this man Ritzheimer is now doing. Our hands off doctrine about religious freedom, if it is followed, has protected our country since its inception from internecine religious and ethnic warfare. I should say rather, except for the aftermath of slavery and the bitterness of the Reconstruction period in the South. Racial hatred is still strong here. A fair-sized minority do hate Jews and Catholics as well. Those things were brought over here from Europe in the very beginning. If Islamists become troublesome here it should not be because our own hands are dirty. If Islam is “an intolerant religion,” why should we become equally so?





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-pentagons-shipment-of-live-anthrax-human-error/

Was Pentagon's shipment of live anthrax "human error"?
By CHIP REID CBS NEWS
May 28, 2015

Play VIDEO
U.S. military admits to shipping live anthrax

The anthrax scare involving the U.S. military is more serious than first thought. More than two dozen people may have been exposed to live anthrax, which can be deadly.

Over the past two months, anthrax was sent via FedEx from a U.S. Army laboratory in Utah to 18 government and private laboratories in nine states and to a U.S. base in South Korea.

The anthrax spores, which were being studied in an effort to find better ways to defend against anthrax, were supposed to be dead. But last Friday, a lab in Maryland notified the Pentagon and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that the anthrax spores it received were, in fact, still alive.

Inhaling live anthrax can be lethal.

The CDC is in the process of testing the other 18 batches sent, but presumes they are alive too.

The CDC says there is no risk to the public. But at least four people who were exposed to the anthrax in the U.S. and 22 people who were exposed to it in South Korea are being provided antibiotics.

The CDC says that the antibiotics are only a precaution and so far, no one has shown any anthrax symptoms.

On Thursday, General Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, said the Utah base followed normal procedures. He added, "The best I can tell, it was not human error."

University of Florida Professor Kenneth Berns, however, says human error is the most likely explanation. He says they should have double checked their work.

"They should have been tested to see if, in fact, they really were inactivated. And my guess is that probably wasn't done adequately," Berns tells CBS News.

The CDC says the risk to the public - including FedEx workers who handled the unopened packages - is almost zero.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/anthrax-files/the-anthrax-attacks-10-years-later/

The Anthrax Attacks: 10 Years Later
Frontline
October 3, 2011, 2:25 pm ET by Sarah Moughty

Ten years ago this week, Florida photo editor Bob Stevens died shortly after being diagnosed as having inhaled anthrax.

Hours earlier, a scientist analyzing a sample of the bacteria that eventually killed Stevens came to a starting conclusion: It matched a particularly lethal strain of anthrax used mainly in U.S. Army laboratories.

Envelopes carrying deadly anthrax were delivered to U.S. Senate offices and network news divisions. Four more people died, and many more were infected before the attacks stopped. The nation was terrorized.

Seven years later, after mistakenly pursuing one suspect, the most expensive and complex investigation ever undertaken by the FBI ended when they identified Army scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins as the sole perpetrator of the attacks. The FBI made their announcement after Ivins had taken his own life.

But questions about the case continue. Earlier this year, a National Academy of Sciences panel raised doubts about the FBI’s scientific conclusions. And many of Ivins’ colleagues insist the FBI got the wrong man.

Next week, in our season premiere, FRONTLINE, along with our partners ProPublica and McClatchy Newspapers, will take a hard look at the FBI’s handling of the country’s most notorious act of bioterrorism. After 10 years and a $100 million investigation, how strong was the FBI’s case? Was Dr. Bruce Ivins the anthrax killer?




CBS 2015 -- “The anthrax scare involving the U.S. military is more serious than first thought. More than two dozen people may have been exposed to live anthrax, which can be deadly. Over the past two months, anthrax was sent via FedEx from a U.S. Army laboratory in Utah to 18 government and private laboratories in nine states and to a U.S. base in South Korea. The anthrax spores, which were being studied in an effort to find better ways to defend against anthrax, were supposed to be dead. But last Friday, a lab in Maryland notified the Pentagon and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that the anthrax spores it received were, in fact, still alive. Inhaling live anthrax can be lethal. …. On Thursday, General Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, said the Utah base followed normal procedures. He added, "The best I can tell, it was not human error." University of Florida Professor Kenneth Berns, however, says human error is the most likely explanation. He says they should have double checked their work.”

NPR 2011 -- “Hours earlier, a scientist analyzing a sample of the bacteria that eventually killed Stevens came to a starting conclusion: It matched a particularly lethal strain of anthrax used mainly in U.S. Army laboratories. Envelopes carrying deadly anthrax were delivered to U.S. Senate offices and network news divisions. Four more people died, and many more were infected before the attacks stopped. The nation was terrorized. Seven years later, after mistakenly pursuing one suspect, the most expensive and complex investigation ever undertaken by the FBI ended when they identified Army scientist Dr. Bruce Ivins as the sole perpetrator of the attacks. The FBI made their announcement after Ivins had taken his own life. …. Earlier this year, a National Academy of Sciences panel raised doubts about the FBI’s scientific conclusions. And many of Ivins’ colleagues insist the FBI got the wrong man.”

The implication in the 2011 NPR article is that the real killer is still sitting pretty in his military cubbyhole and has decided to send out some more lethal packages. General Odierno denies that “human error” caused this, which can only mean that it was again done intentionally. Knowing what I do of human beings, I suspect error. A lab worker who didn’t get enough sleep the night before or who is tripping on some that newly legalized marijuana has probably failed to follow the right procedures and has lied about it to save his job. Odierno has backed him up because he doesn’t want another scandal. Several years ago several vials of live smallpox viruses were shipped out by an army source, and they did at that time admit error.

The fact is that having any live “bugs” around is an automatic source of problems. Supposedly we aren’t doing germ warfare – under the UN program of 1975, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program and http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/ -- but Wikipedia questions that. See the Wikipedia article below. If Obama is aware of a newly activated program of this kind and has not tried to stop it, he should be impeached, no matter how nice a guy he seems to be. Likewise if members of Congress and the Senate are involved with the DOD on new research, other than to improve our defense against anthrax, I want to see the news outlets raise one of their best uproars about it and name names of legislators who are complicit. A good national defense is a good thing, but using biological and nuclear weapons are both sheer stupidity. The risks are simply too great.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program

“The United States biological weapons program officially began in spring 1943 on orders from U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. Research continued following World War II as the U.S. built up a large stockpile of biological agents and weapons. Over the course of its 27 year history, the program weaponized and stockpiled the following seven bio-agents (and pursued basic research on many more):

##Bacillus anthracis (anthrax)
##Francisella tularensis (tularemia)
##Brucella spp (brucellosis)
##Coxiella burnetii (Q-fever)
##Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE)
##Botulinum toxin (botulism)
##Staphylococcal enterotoxin B

Throughout its history, the U.S. bioweapons program was secret. It became controversial when it was later revealed that laboratory and field testing (some of the latter using simulants on non-consenting individuals) had been common. The official policy of the United States was first to deter the use of bio-weapons against U.S. forces and secondarily to retaliate if deterrence failed. There exists no evidence that the U.S. ever used biological agents against an enemy in the field (see below for alleged uses).

In 1969, President Richard Nixon ended all offensive (i.e., non-defensive) aspects of the U.S. bio-weapons program. In 1975 the U.S. ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)—international treaties outlawing biological warfare. Recent U.S. biodefense programs, however, have raised concerns that the U.S. may be pursuing research that is outlawed by the BWC.”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/worried-virginia-mom-facebook-post-thanking-cop-goes-viral/

Worried Va. mom's Facebook post thanking cop goes viral
CBS NEWS
May 19, 2015

Photograph -- Matt Okes, left, and Joseph Owusu NADA OWUSU VIA FACEBOOK
Play VIDEO
O'Malley: When our country is creating jobs, we are all better off


As officials nationwide talk about the need to better police-community relations, a small act of kindness by a Virginia state trooper has gotten widespread attention on social media.

Dr. Nada Owusu, a pediatrician in Danville, Va., posted a photo to Facebook of her wide-eyed son standing next to Officer Matt Okes, praising the officer for "being a good person waiting with my son" after he got a flat tire driving home from Virginia Tech.

It has over 18,000 shares as of Tuesday morning.

"This kind officer approached him, didn't ask if the little Mercedes was stolen, but rather got on his knees to replace his tire," Owusu wrote.

Okes positioned his well-lit cruiser to make sure truckers and other drivers on Route 220 south were aware of Joseph Owusu's stranded car as AAA and his worried parents responded, reports CBS affiliate WTVR in Richmond.

Nada Owusu said she wanted to share with the world the simple act of kindness because, "there's a lot of good in America and that needs to be heard. Police need our support."




“As officials nationwide talk about the need to better police-community relations, a small act of kindness by a Virginia state trooper has gotten widespread attention on social media. Dr. Nada Owusu, a pediatrician in Danville, Va., posted a photo to Facebook of her wide-eyed son standing next to Officer Matt Okes, praising the officer for "being a good person waiting with my son" after he got a flat tire driving home from Virginia Tech. …. "This kind officer approached him, didn't ask if the little Mercedes was stolen, but rather got on his knees to replace his tire," Owusu wrote.”

Officer Okes is standing beside Owusu and both have big smiles on their faces. That’s great news. I’ll share an incident of my own. About 20 years ago I drove my car from my apartment in Washington, DC to the Pennsylvania Amish country to see the sights. It was getting late, around 9:00 PM and after dark when I got there. Unfortunately I couldn’t see how to get through a certain intersection and was misread a sign for the road connection that I needed. I kept driving around and around, unable to get to it, when the fatal blue lights came up behind me. The officer got out and came up to my window. Expecting a ticket, I rolled down my window. A very nice-looking man about 30 years old asked me with concern evident in his voice, “Are you lost?” I said with great relief and frustration mixed, “Yes!!” He simply asked me where I wanted to go, I told him, and he led me to crossroads which I should have taken. There are probably more good officers than bad ones, especially those who are a touch on the cruel or racist side. Unfortunately, those bad ones get in the news more often.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-five-things-to-know-about-martin-omalley/

Five things to know about Martin O'Malley
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS
May 29, 2015

Photograph -- Play VIDEO
Martin O’Malley: More Dems should challenge Hillary Clinton

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is expected to formally declare his 2016 presidential bid on Saturday at a rally in Baltimore, his home for decades and the city he once served as a councilmember and mayor.

He's been laying the groundwork for a bid for some time, stepping up his visits to early voting states and building the campaign infrastructure he'll need to compete against Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton. This week, some of his political allies launched "Generation Forward," a super PAC dedicated to supporting his candidacy.

The O'Malley team's case for his candidacy is heavily generational. They say the country needs new leadership for the 21st century, and it's a natural argument for O'Malley, who's 52 years of age, compared with the other two Democratic candidates - Clinton, who is 67 and Bernie Sanders, a spry 73.

Still, most analysts consider O'Malley's bid a long shot at this point. A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday showed him at one percent among Democratic primary voters nationwide. But that could change as voters get to know him: A CBS News poll earlier this month found that 11 percent of Democrats would consider supporting O'Malley for the nomination. Seventeen percent said they would not consider him, and 72 percent said they don't know enough to decide.

Here are five things you need to know about Martin O'Malley:

The Clintons are a conflict for him
In a bid to disrupt Hillary Clinton's domination of early Democratic primary polls, O'Malley has positioned himself as the true progressive in the race - the counterpoint to the frontrunner, who has been running as a populist, but has had her centrist moments. (The contrast with Bernie Sanders also makes her look more centrist.)

O'Malley has soft-pedaled his criticisms of Clinton thus far, but you get the sense that a more damning indictment is lurking just offscreen, waiting for the right moment to emerge.

"We can be the party that leads our country into the future," O'Malley told CBS News' "Face the Nation" in April. "But we won't do it unless we offer ideas for the future and break with things like bad trade deals, the systematic deregulation of Wall Street that many Democrats were complicit in and helped get us into this mess."

As evidence of his progressive bona-fides, O'Malley has cited his decision to sign a same-sex marriage bill in 2012 and a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to receive drivers licenses in 2013. Clinton now shares those positions, but she arrived at them more recently than O'Malley - and he wants to make sure voters know it.

"I'm glad Secretary Clinton's come around to the right positions on these issues," O'Malley said in April during an event at Harvard's Institute of Politics. "I believe that we are best as a party when we lead with our principles and not according to the polls...Leadership is about making the right decision, and the best decision before sometimes it becomes entirely popular."

When it comes to Clinton's husband, O'Malley's views are harder to pin down. This year, O'Malley has advanced a dim view of "triangulation," a political strategy associated with former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s to position his administration in the ideological center between the two major parties.

"Triangulation is not a strategy that will move America forward," O'Malley said in February, according to the New York Times. "History celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience."

In 2007, however, O'Malley was feeling nostalgic for "the success of the last centrist president," he said in a Washington Post op-ed with former Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee. He wrote admiringly, "Bill Clinton ran on an agenda of sensible ideas that brought America a decade of peace and prosperity. He was the only Democrat to be elected and reelected president in the past seven decades, and he left office more popular than almost any other president in recent memory."

And as recently as 2013, O'Malley said that the model for his own presidential run would be Bill Clinton.

But now, as he seeks a toehold in a race that could once again pit a Bush against a Clinton, O'Malley has suggested he plans to campaign against the power of political dynasties.

"The presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families," he told ABC News in April. "It is an awesome and sacred trust to be earned and exercised on behalf of the American people."

He's been criticized on criminal justice issues

After Baltimore erupted in protests when a young black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody last month, O'Malley called for criminal justice reform in a Huffington Post op-ed, urging policymakers to rethink old ideas about race and policing

"We must continue to work constantly to improve policing and the way we police our police," he said. "Public trust is essential to public safety. Public trust is essential for officer safety. Enlightened police chiefs across our country understand this."

As mayor of Baltimore, O'Malley oversaw a dramatic reduction in the city's violent crime rate, pushing a "zero tolerance" approach to law enforcement that embraced tough-on-crime police tactics. The Washington Post notes that while O'Malley was in office, "The overall crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000 people) fell by 48 percent during that decade, more than any other large police agency in the country. Specifically for violent crimes, the Baltimore City Police Department saw the third highest drop (behind Los Angeles and New York City) during the period."

Critics, though, have said some of O'Malley's tactics are partly to blame for the tensions between police and minority communities in Baltimore today. He "probably had the best of intentions, but boy, was it foreseeable," Joe Margulies, a visiting professor at Cornell Law School, told CBS News. "When you are so unrelenting in your stops -- and every officer on the street would tell you this -- you can predict with absolute certainty that you're going to breed a lot of animosity."

"The stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O'Malley," David Simon, a Baltimore native and the creator of HBO's "The Wire" told The Marshall Project last month. "What happened under his watch as Baltimore's mayor was that he wanted to be governor. And at a certain point, with the crime rate high and with his promises of a reduced crime rate on the line, he put no faith in real policing."

He's a bit of a numbers geek

One of O'Malley's signature initiatives, both as mayor and as governor, was a data-driven approach to governing that used computer programs to measure and track government performance on a wide variety of metrics.

As mayor, he pioneered a program called CitiStat that monitored everything from pothole maintenance to city employee attendance and the deployment of police resources.

Matthew Gallagher, the program's former director, told the Washington Post in March that CitiStat was a "fundamental bedrock" of O'Malley's approach to governance and something he's "rightfully proud of."

And when O'Malley was elected governor of Maryland, he implemented a statewide version of the program called StateStat.

"There's not a doubt in my mind that this is the new way of governing and getting things done," he said of his emphasis on quantitative data during a March speech at the Brookings Institution. "This is the way our federal government should operate. . . . The larger the human organization, the more important performance-based measurement becomes."

That's not the kind of scintillating rallying cry that typically rouses crowds on the stump, but O'Malley has suggested it will resonate nonetheless.

"I think people are actually far more interested in a functioning government and effective governance and people with executive experience than we might give them credit for," he said during the speech at Brookings.

He inspired a character on HBO's "The Wire"

One of the most acclaimed shows on television between 2002 and 2008 was HBO's "The Wire," which took a gritty, unflinching look at life in inner city Baltimore. The show included perspectives from the city's police force and some of its criminal elements. It also included the view from City Hall, and one of the show's characters, Tommy Carcetti, bore a striking resemblance to O'Malley.

Like O'Malley, Carcetti was a charismatic, young politician who held a seat on the Baltimore City Council. Like O'Malley, he staged an unlikely but ultimately successful bid for mayor, becoming a white mayor of a majority-black city. Like O'Malley, Carcetti followed his stint as mayor with a stint as governor of Maryland.

Of course, Carcetti, as his name suggests, was an Italian-American, and O'Malley is an Irish-American. But the actor who played Carcetti, Aidan Gillen, is Irish.

The parallels are striking, but show creator David Simon has said O'Malley was only one of several politicians that influenced Carcetti's character.

Carcetti wasn't always the most morally upstanding player in the show, though, which limits the upside of the comparison a little for O'Malley As mayor, he pioneered a program called CitiStat that monitored everything from pothole maintenance to city employee attendance and the deployment of police resources.

Matthew Gallagher, the program's former director, told the Washington Post in March that CitiStat was a "fundamental bedrock" of O'Malley's approach to governance and something he's "rightfully proud of."

And when O'Malley was elected governor of Maryland, he implemented a statewide version of the program called StateStat.

"O'Malley's tenure was as destructive a mayoralty to causes of crime and punishment as Baltimore has ever seen and, by that standard, Tommy Carcetti makes him look good," Simon told the Daily Beast in 2013.

He's in a Celtic rock band

While he usually plays the part of a fairly unassuming politician, O'Malley has an edgier side as well: he's actually the frontman and lead guitarist for "O'Malley's March," a Celtic rock band.

The band was formed in 1988, according to the Washington Post, and it's seen a host of members cycle through during the last few decades. But even as O'Malley has continued his rise up the political ladder, the band hasn't been discarded. If anything, it's actually risen in prominence thanks to the increased prominence of its frontman.

The band played at O'Malleys inaugural balls in 2007 and 2011, and it sporadically played gigs while O'Malley occupied the governor's mansion. In December 2014, the band played its final shows of O'Malley's tenure during a two-night event at the Rams Head in Annapolis, Maryland.

In some ways, O'Malley has argued, the business of governing is not entirely dissimilar to his experience onstage with the band.

"The other guys in the band are the real musicians, and so if you surround yourself with really strong musicians, anything is possible," he told Yahoo News in 2014. "And, in that sense, it's similar to governing. If you surround yourself with people that are actually really good at doing what they do, then that makes the whole effort move forward."

Asked whether he might bring the band on the 2016 campaign trail with him, O'Malley demurred. "I haven't thought that far down the road," he said. "The band's never played at a campaign rally. I used to play a lot more as mayor. You could always be at any black tie event and still make downbeat by 10 p.m."




“Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is expected to formally declare his 2016 presidential bid on Saturday at a rally in Baltimore, his home for decades and the city he once served as a councilmember and mayor. He's been laying the groundwork for a bid for some time, stepping up his visits to early voting states and building the campaign infrastructure he'll need to compete against Democratic frontrunner Hilla-ry Rodham Clinton. This week, some of his political allies launched "Generation Forward," a super PAC dedicated to supporting his candidacy. …. O'Malley has po-sitioned himself as the true progressive in the race - the counterpoint to the frontrun-ner, who has been running as a populist, but has had her centrist moments. (The contrast with Bernie Sanders also makes her look more centrist.) …. "We can be the party that leads our country into the future," O'Malley told CBS News' "Face the Nation" in April. "But we won't do it unless we offer ideas for the future and break with things like bad trade deals, the systematic deregulation of Wall Street that many Democrats were complicit in and helped get us into this mess." …. "I believe that we are best as a party when we lead with our principles and not according to the polls...Leadership is about making the right decision, and the best decision before sometimes it becomes entirely popular." …. He wrote admiringly, "Bill Clinton ran on an agenda of sensible ideas that brought America a decade of peace and prosperi-ty. He was the only Democrat to be elected and reelected president in the past seven decades, and he left office more popular than almost any other president in recent memory." …. He's been criticized on criminal justice issues: After Baltimore erupted in protests when a young black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody last month, O'Malley called for criminal justice reform in a Huffington Post op-ed, urg-ing policymakers to rethink old ideas about race and policing. "We must continue to work constantly to improve policing and the way we police our police," he said. "Public trust is essential to public safety. Public trust is essential for officer safety. Enlightened police chiefs across our country understand this." …. As mayor, he pio-neered a program called CitiStat that monitored everything from pothole mainte-nance to city employee attendance and the deployment of police resources. Matthew Gallagher, the program's former director, told the Washington Post in March that CitiStat was a "fundamental bedrock" of O'Malley's approach to governance and something he's "rightfully proud of." And when O'Malley was elected governor of Maryland, he implemented a statewide version of the program called StateStat. …. While he usually plays the part of a fairly unassuming politician, O'Malley has an edgier side as well: he's actually the frontman and lead guitarist for "O'Malley's March," a Celtic rock band.”

“As mayor of Baltimore, O'Malley oversaw a dramatic reduction in the city's violent crime rate, pushing a "zero tolerance" approach to law enforcement that embraced tough-on-crime police tactics.” …. Joe Margulies, a visiting professor at Cornell Law School, told CBS News. "When you are so unrelenting in your stops -- and every of-ficer on the street would tell you this -- you can predict with absolute certainty that you're going to breed a lot of animosity." …. "The stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O'Malley," David Simon, a Baltimore native and the creator of HBO's "The Wire" told The Marshall Project last month. "What hap-pened under his watch as Baltimore's mayor was that he wanted to be governor. And at a certain point, with the crime rate high and with his promises of a reduced crime rate on the line, he put no faith in real policing."

I was looking for reasons to decide for or against O’Malley other than that he simply isn’t well-know enough for me to choose him. He’s supposed to be more liberal than Hillary according to his own analysis, but maybe he’s not, and maybe his overuse of computerized analysis in his governance is also a weakness. Some wise and well-educated human counsellors would do better, I think. His CitiStat program, which has been imitated in several of the problem cities, was blamed in some news articles recently for the police abuses that have occurred. The whole “no tolerance” policy is a problem. Cops need to make human decisions and think rationally on their feet. Nine times out of ten there is no supervisor nearby when they shoot someone, so there is a need for humane motivations. If cops are too geared to statistics, especially when they get promotions based on how many tickets they write, they focus less on human beings. I think I won’t vote for O’Malley for President in 2016. I don’t like what I see in this article.






http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-financial-fragility-of-the-american-household/

The financial fragility of the American household
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH
May 29, 2015


Play VIDEO
Health risks of irregular work shifts

Here's a fact that illustrates why so many Americans feel the economic recovery has yet to kick in: Almost half can't pony up $400 to cover an emergency expense.

That's according to a new study from the Federal Reserve, which polled more than 5,800 Americans on the state of their finances in 2014. The results also offered some hopeful notes, given that almost one-third of Americans believed their income would increase in the following year, up from just one in five in 2013.

Despite the optimism that better days will soon arrive, many Americans appear to be living one big expense away from disaster.

Forty-seven percent said they didn't have the cash to pay for a hypothetical $400 emergency expense or would be forced to sell something or borrow money to raise the funds, the survey found. Almost one-quarter of respondents said they or a family member living with them experienced recent financial hardship, such as losing a job or suffering a health emergency.

To top off the glum picture of Americans' financial health, one in five respondents said their spending was greater than their income.

While that might point to poor financial management skills, many Americans have struggled with stagnant wages while costs for everyday items such as gas and food have continued to creep upwards. The Consumer Price Index has increased 37 percent between 2000 to 2015. During the same time, median household income has declined 4 percent, according to Sentier Research.

"The findings in this survey highlight that economic challenges remain for a significant portion of the population," the Fed report noted. "These consumers remain vulnerable to economic hardship in the case of further financial disruption or are at risk of economic hardship in the future due to an inability to save for future needs such as retirement."

It may come as no surprise that those who report the smallest rainy day funds and savings rates are those living in households with annual incomes of less than $40,000. About 27 percent of those households said their spending exceeded income, or almost twice the proportion of households with at least $100,000 in annual income, the study found.

Americans haven't been known for their discipline in setting aside money for an emergency, but on top of stagnant income, another issue is bedeviling workers: Many want to put in more hours, but may not be able to find full-time work.

The issue of "underemployment" is a serious issue for American workers, given that part-time work often means a lack of benefits -- such as health care coverage, which could stave off huge medical bills -- and lower income. About 36 percent of non-self-employed workers said they'd like to work more hours at their current wage, while among part-time workers, that jumped to almost half of respondents.

That's driving many Americans to juggle multiple jobs. The survey found that 15 percent of respondents have at least two jobs. Working multiple jobs is more likely among lower-income workers, who may be scheduled to shift work by computer software that retailers and restaurants increasingly use. About 17 percent of the U.S. workforce is now coping with an unstable schedule, the left-leaning think tank Economic Policy Institute reported last month.

Yet despite the difficulties reported by so many households, Americans have registered a "mild" improvement in how they view their economic well-being since the recession ended. About 40 percent said they were either "somewhat" or "much better" off than they were in 2009. About 9 percent said they were much worse off than in 2009.

A significant slice of the population relies on government aid each month to get by. The U.S. Census reported on Thursday that one out of five Americans relied on a means-tested assistance program each month in 2012. That's a jump from 18.6 percent in 2009.

The report reflected the idea the recovery is lifting only some boats. Almost half of college-educated respondents said they are better off than in 2009, compared with only 37 percent of those without bachelors' degrees.

Still, the sense of well-being might be fleeting. After all, Americans are lousy about preparing for retirement, which means their visions of enjoying their golden years could be dashed on the rocks of their empty retirement accounts. Almost one in five Americans has set nothing aside for retirement, and 39 percent of Americans say they have either given no thought or only a little to planning for retirement.

Of course, when so many Americans are living one big bill away from financial disaster, it's understandable that planning for retirement may seem like a pipe dream.




“Almost half can't pony up $400 to cover an emergency expense. That's according to a new study from the Federal Reserve, which polled more than 5,800 Americans on the state of their finances in 2014. The results also offered some hopeful notes, given that almost one-third of Americans believed their income would increase in the following year, up from just one in five in 2013. Despite the optimism that better days will soon arrive, many Americans appear to be living one big expense away from disaster. …. To top off the glum picture of Americans' financial health, one in five respondents said their spending was greater than their income. While that might point to poor financial management skills, many Americans have struggled with stagnant wages while costs for everyday items such as gas and food have continued to creep upwards. The Consumer Price Index has increased 37 percent between 2000 to 2015. During the same time, median household income has declined 4 percent, according to Sentier Research. …. Americans haven't been known for their discipline in setting aside money for an emergency, but on top of stagnant income, another issue is bedeviling workers: Many want to put in more hours, but may not be able to find full-time work. …. That's driving many Americans to juggle multiple jobs. The survey found that 15 percent of respondents have at least two jobs. Working multiple jobs is more likely among lower-income workers, who may be scheduled to shift work by computer software that retailers and restaurants increasingly use. About 17 percent of the U.S. workforce is now coping with an unstable schedule, the left-leaning think tank Economic Policy Institute reported last month. …. A significant slice of the population relies on government aid each month to get by. The U.S. Census reported on Thursday that one out of five Americans relied on a means-tested assistance program each month in 2012. That's a jump from 18.6 percent in 2009. The report reflected the idea the recovery is lifting only some boats. Almost half of college-educated respondents said they are better off than in 2009, compared with only 37 percent of those without bachelors' degrees. …. Of course, when so many Americans are living one big bill away from financial disaster, it's understandable that planning for retirement may seem like a pipe dream.”

“Fragility” is a very good word for our economic situation in so many homes. I am actually better off now than I was when I recently formally retired. My Social Security income is just under $1,000 a month, but it is reliable, and I am in a rent-controlled building. I’m going to apply for food stamps as soon as I get the application, which will help. It does too frequently cost some $50.00 a week for groceries. My prescription meds are paid by Medicare, but I do depend on a few that are OTC and therefore not covered. I need to get some major dental work done soon, which will eat up about half of my savings. I’m feeling under tension, since I’m going to have to cut some expenses, like possibly give up driving the car. Not good! I feel I can adjust to the situation in all probability, leaving me a meager few dollars a month to spend for needs. Luckily, I wasn’t brought up with money, so I’m not depressed when I can’t have a new smartphone or mink coat. I wonder what a good progressive Democrat can do to improve our national economic situation. I think Bernie Sanders is still the man for me.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-this-be-the-worlds-first-murder/

Could this be the world's first known murder?
By MICHAEL CASEY CBS NEWS
May 27, 2015

Photograph -- A 430,000-year-old skull that scientists believe shows evidence of blunt force trauma, making this individual the world's first known murder victim. JAVIER TRUEBA / MADRID SCIENTIFIC FILMS

Scientists have stumbled upon what may be the world's first known murder at an archeological site in Spain.

Examining fragments of a human skull found in the Sima de los Huesos (or "Pit of Bones"), also known as the SH site, the researchers writing Wednesday in the journal PLOS One described how they found evidence of blunt force trauma that may have caused the death of an individual some 430,000 years ago.

"This individual was killed in an act of lethal interpersonal violence, providing a window into an often invisible aspect of the social life of our human ancestors," Nohemi Sala, of the Centro Mixto UCM-ISCIII de Evolución y Comportamiento Humano, told CBS News. "The site provides evidence of the earliest funerary practices found to date and suggests this behavior can be traced back to deep within the Middle Pleistocene time period."

The site, deep with in an underground cave system in northern Spain, is famous for its treasure trove of ancient remains.

So far, researchers have found 28 individuals that date back around 430,000 years and were hominin species belonging to the Neanderthal grouping. The only access to the site is through a 13-meter-deep vertical shaft, and researchers have yet to resolve how the bodies arrived there. They have been able to rule out carnivore activity or a geological event such as a sinkhole or landslide, leaving the possibility of accidental falls or intentional accumulation of bodies such as a burial site.

The evidence for the alleged murder revolved around 52 cranial fragments recovered during excavations at the site over the last 20 years. The skull shows two penetrating lesions on the frontal bone, above the left eye.

Relying on modern forensic techniques, such as contour and trajectory analysis of the traumas and a 3D imaging from a CT scan of the cranium, the authors showed that both fractures were likely produced by two separate impacts by the same object, with slightly different trajectories around the time of the individual's death.

They said the injuries are unlikely to be the result of an accidental fall down the vertical shaft. Rather, the type of fracture, their location, and the fact that they appear to have been produced by two blows with the same object have convinced Sala and his team that this was a result of violence.

"Based on the similarities in shape and size of both the wounds, we believe they are the result of repeated blows with the same object and inflicted by another individual, perhaps in a face-to-face encounter," Sala said, adding the murder weapon could have been a wooden spear or stone hand axe.

The researchers acknowledge there have been other prehistoric murder mysteries - but those two individuals appear to have died in other ways.

In one of those cases, the Shanidar 3 Neanderthal shows a penetrating lesion to the left ninth rib, the researchers wrote, but it appears the individual "survived for several weeks after the lesion, and it is not clear that the final cause of death was related to the rib injury."

And the Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens individual known as Sunghir 1 shows trauma to the first thoracic vertebra, which has been interpreted as the likely cause of death. "While this would seem to represent a relatively clear case of lethal interpersonal violence, the authors did not rule out the possibility of a hunting accident."

If the Spanish case proves to be the world's first murder, the researchers said it would demonstrate "that the lethal interpersonal violence is an ancient human behavior."

The latest findings are "completely compelling," said Debra L. Martin, Lincy Professor of Anthropology at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the co-editor of the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, who did not take part in the study. The research shows this "social behavior that has been with us for a very long time."

"It is not particularly patterned or regularized in any sort of way when you look back into the Mesolithic or anywhere in the 'bloody' Neolithic," she told CBS News in an email interview. "It is nuanced, highly variable in it style, content, meaning and motivations, and I suspect the farther we push back and find straight up forensic evidence such as these authors have, we will find that violence is culturally mediated and has been with us as long as culture itself has been with us."

The researchers also said the finding "has important implications for the accumulation of bodies at the site."

"The only possible manner by which a deceased individual could have arrived at the SH site is if its cadaver were dropped down the shaft by other hominins," the authors wrote. "Thus, the interpretation of the SH site as a place where hominins deposited deceased members of their social groups seems to be the most likely scenario to explain the presence of human bodies at the site. This interpretation implies this was a social practice among this group of Middle Pleistocene hominins and may represent the earliest funerary behavior in the human fossil record."




“Examining fragments of a human skull found in the Sima de los Huesos (or "Pit of Bones"), also known as the SH site, the researchers writing Wednesday in the journal PLOS One described how they found evidence of blunt force trauma that may have caused the death of an individual some 430,000 years ago. "This individual was killed in an act of lethal interpersonal violence, providing a window into an often invisible aspect of the social life of our human ancestors," …. The site, deep with in an underground cave system in northern Spain, is famous for its treasure trove of ancient remains. So far, researchers have found 28 individuals that date back around 430,000 years and were hominin species belonging to the Neanderthal grouping. The only access to the site is through a 13-meter-deep vertical shaft, and researchers have yet to resolve how the bodies arrived there. They have been able to rule out carnivore activity or a geological event such as a sinkhole or landslide, leaving the possibility of accidental falls or intentional accumulation of bodies such as a burial site. …. . "It is nuanced, highly variable in it style, content, meaning and motivations, and I suspect the farther we push back and find straight up forensic evidence such as these authors have, we will find that violence is culturally mediated and has been with us as long as culture itself has been with us." …. "Thus, the interpretation of the SH site as a place where hominins deposited deceased members of their social groups seems to be the most likely scenario to explain the presence of human bodies at the site. This interpretation implies this was a social practice among this group of Middle Pleistocene hominins and may represent the earliest funerary behavior in the human fossil record."

This is all interesting, but none of it is very surprising. One of my Jane Goodall tapes shows that particular group of chimps literally going to war with a neighboring chimp tribe and – yuck! – eating them. War and murder are built into the human brain, and maybe cannibalism also. It’s like the very large fangs found in the several different unrelated sabertoothed cats, they are beginning to appear in the modern very beautiful snow leopard now again. According to a recent article on paleontology, the trait of huge teeth has died out and then reappeared in a new cat species on a recurring basis, at least three times.

The other thing that was significant is a probable funerary practice, which scientist think indicates the ability to think symbolically. Neanderthals were, in the past, considered to be incapable of such thought patterns, yet both the early burials I’ve seen mentioned have been of Neanderthal bones. The other one was in the Middle East in a cave, and the body was coated with pollen and “red ochre,” which is an iron chemical that occurs naturally. It is used to this day by some tribal societies in Africa, and maybe other places as well. The archeologist in the “flower” burial thought it may have been because large handfuls of flowers had been buried with the body. That’s not only a funeral, it’s an expression of love and probably of a “life after death” belief – ancient religion in other words.

I do sometimes wonder to what degree certain other animals like dogs and apes “think” and feel love. My experience with both dogs and cats shows me that they do feel both love and sadness. The more I learn about subhuman intelligence, the more impressed I am by its possibilities. Animals like elephants and sea mammals are also of interest in this regard, though I don’t know as much about them. I am convinced that torturing or simply mistreating animals is indeed a “sin” as much as doing it to a human is. The law is catching up on the issue, too. It’s possible to be arrested for mistreating an animal, as it should be. People who are cruel to animals are often cruel to humans also. I do come close to absolutely hating abusive people. That’s why some of the police abuse stories I have heard over the last fifteen years or so make me so very angry. I despise bullies.