.









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.