July 10, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/suspected-us-drone-strikes-kill-key-islamic-state-figures-in-afghanistan/ar-AAcKPWT?ocid=iehp

Suspected U.S. drone strikes kill key Islamic State figures in Afghanistan
The Washington Post
Sudarsan Raghavan and Tim Craig
July 9, 2015

KABUL — A key leader of the Islamic State and another top commander were killed in recent U.S drone strikes in eastern Afghanistan, according to intelligence officials here, the latest sign that the radical Islamist group is considered a growing threat in the country.

The strike in Nangahar province — which the U.S. military said occurred Tuesday — killed more than two dozen Islamic State militants, according to local media reports. They included Shahidullah Shahid, a former spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban who defected last year to help launch the Islamic State’s branch in Afghanistan. Shahid is thought to have been the group’s chief spokesman in the country.

Afghan intelligence officials said Islamic State commander Gull Zaman also was killed this week in a U.S. drone strike. But it was unclear whether he died in the same strike that targeted Shahid. A U.S. military spokesman in Kabul said several “precision strikes” were conducted against “individuals threatening” U.S. and Afghan forces in two districts of Nangahar on Monday and Tuesday.

As of Thursday night, the Islamic State had not confirmed the reported deaths.

[Taliban in Afghanistan tells Islamic State to stay out of country]

The suspected drone attacks suggest that the United States is becoming increasingly involved in thwarting the rise of the Islamic State — also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh — in Afghanistan. Tribal elders and provincial officials in Nangahar said a U.S. air campaign, conducted in conjunction with Afghan security forces­ and intelligence agents, has been underway in the province for two weeks. U.S. drones and fighter jets have been deployed regularly, officials said.

“These assaults have intensified in the past two days,” said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, a spokesman for the provincial governor’s office. “Some 80, 90 insurgents have been killed in these airstrikes in the past two weeks.”

The strikes come as the Islamic State, which controls swaths of Syria and Iraq, has made steady inroads in Afghanistan this year, although its presence in next-door Pakistan remains limited. In January, the group announced the creation of its Khorasan chapter, a reference to an ancient term for an area that includes Afghanistan and Pakistan.

By February, U.S. military commanders were noticing disaffected Taliban fighters rebranding themselves as Islamic State members. Today, the group is clashing with the Taliban as they jockey for control of territory in eastern Afghanistan. In Nangahar, the Islamic State controls several areas.

This week’s assaults also coincided with the launch of peace talks between Afghanistan and the Pakistan-based Taliban leadership. The first session was held Tuesday night near the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. The Islamic State opposes the talks.

[Fear of the Islamic State spawns a renegade Afghan militia]

For years, Shahid was the chief spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, frequently appearing in media reports to assert responsibility for some of the grisliest attacks in Pakistan.

But in October, Shahid surprised many analysts when he appeared in a video expressing support for the Islamic State and its supreme commander, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The Pakistani Taliban, which views the Islamic State as a rival and considers Mohammad Omar its supreme leader, quickly severed ties with Shahid. The defector then emerged as a key leader of the Islamic State’s Khorasan chapter.

A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan provided no details of the operations or the targets. But Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security said it supplied the intelligence for the strikes, which have unfolded mostly in Nangahar’s Achin and Bati Kot districts, where the Taliban and the Islamic State have waged intense battles.

A powerful tribal elder in Bati Kot suggested that the U.S. strikes may have killed many Taliban fighters, as well.

“Based on the information that I have, American drones have attacked the Taliban and the Daesh fighters while they were fighting each other in Achin district,” said Zahir, the elder, who, like many Afghans, uses one name. “I can say huge numbers of Daesh and Taliban fighters have been killed because both group’s fighters were gathered in one area.”

According to the Long War Journal, a Web site that monitors conflicts, Zaman was the deputy leader of the Islamic State’s Khorasan chapter. Afghan intelligence officials identified Zaman as the group’s “military operations deputy.”

Previously, Zaman had led the Pakistani Taliban’s operations in Pakistan’s Orakzai tribal area, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, which monitors violence in the region.

The Pakistani Taliban has been badly weakened over the past year because of defections and an ongoing Pakistani military operation. But one of Pakistan’s most wanted militants, Pakistani Taliban commander Mullah Fazlullah, remains at large.

Fazlullah, the mastermind of a gruesome attack on a school in Peshawar in December, is thought to reside in Afghanistan. Both U.S and Afghan military commanders have said they are searching for him.

Craig reported from Islamabad. Mohammad Sharif in Kabul and Haq Nawaz Khan in Peshawar contributed to this report.




“The strike in Nangahar province — which the U.S. military said occurred Tuesday — killed more than two dozen Islamic State militants, according to local media reports. They included Shahidullah Shahid, a former spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban who defected last year to help launch the Islamic State’s branch in Afghanistan. Shahid is thought to have been the group’s chief spokesman in the country. …. Afghan intelligence officials said Islamic State commander Gull Zaman also was killed this week in a U.S. drone strike. …. [Taliban in Afghanistan tells Islamic State to stay out of country] …. The suspected drone attacks suggest that the United States is becoming increasingly involved in thwarting the rise of the Islamic State — also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh — in Afghanistan. Tribal elders and provincial officials in Nangahar said a U.S. air campaign, conducted in conjunction with Afghan security forces­ and intelligence agents, has been underway in the province for two weeks. U.S. drones and fighter jets have been deployed regularly, officials said. …. . “Some 80, 90 insurgents have been killed in these airstrikes in the past two weeks.” The strikes come as the Islamic State, which controls swaths of Syria and Iraq, has made steady inroads in Afghanistan this year, although its presence in next-door Pakistan remains limited. …. For years, Shahid was the chief spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, frequently appearing in media reports to assert responsibility for some of the grisliest attacks in Pakistan. But in October, Shahid surprised many analysts when he appeared in a video expressing support for the Islamic State and its supreme commander, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The Pakistani Taliban, which views the Islamic State as a rival and considers Mohammad Omar its supreme leader, quickly severed ties with Shahid. The defector then emerged as a key leader of the Islamic State’s Khorasan chapter. …. According to the Long War Journal, a Web site that monitors conflicts, Zaman was the deputy leader of the Islamic State’s Khorasan chapter. Afghan intelligence officials identified Zaman as the group’s “military operations deputy.” Previously, Zaman had led the Pakistani Taliban’s operations in Pakistan’s Orakzai tribal area, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, which monitors violence in the region.”

ISIS is worming its way into the territories which have been, at least to some extent, linked to the US. Luckily the Taliban is fighting them and hopefully will hold them back. One thing that I have never heard said about the Taliban is that they are afraid to fight. If we did kill some two dozen members of ISIS in a few days, by US accounts, that’s good. The figure “80, 90” was claimed by Afghani officials for the last two days. If that many were killed every day ISIS could be beaten back. Interestingly Pakistan has been able to stand against them better than Afghanistan, or at any rate there are fewer ISIS insurgents in Pakistan, although Shahid formerly a Pakistani Taliban leader has gone over to the ISIS side. It’s very confused and confusing, and it seems that a win doesn’t mean that the newly gained territory will be held for very long. This is discouraging.








http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/opinion/why-is-the-federal-government-afraid-of-fat.html?_r=1

Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
By DARIUSH MOZAFFARIAN and DAVID S. LUDWIG
JULY 9, 2015

BOSTON — SINCE the publication of the federal government’s 1980 Dietary Guidelines, dietary policy has focused on reducing total fat in the American diet — specifically, to no more than 30 percent of a person’s daily calories. This fear of fat has had far-reaching impacts, from consumer preferences to the billions of dollars spent by the military, government-run hospitals and school districts on food. As we argue in a recently published article in The Journal of the American Medical Association, 35 years after that policy shift, it’s long past time for us to exonerate dietary fat.

The guidelines changed how Americans eat. By the mid-1990s, a flood of low-fat products entered the food supply: nonfat salad dressing, baked potato chips, low-fat sweetened milk and yogurt and low-fat processed turkey and bologna. Take fat-free SnackWell’s cookies. In 1994, only two years after being introduced, SnackWell’s skyrocketed to become America’s No. 1 cookie, displacing Oreos, a favorite for more than 80 years.

In place of fat, we were told to eat more carbohydrates. Indeed, carbohydrates were positioned as the foundation of a healthy diet: The 1992 edition of the food pyramid, assembled by the Department of Agriculture, recommended up to 11 daily servings of bread, cereal, rice and pasta. Americans, and food companies and restaurants, listened — our consumption of fat went down and carbs, way up.

But nutrition, like any scientific field, has advanced quickly, and by 2000, the benefits of very-low-fat diets had come into question. Increasingly, the 30 percent cap on dietary fat appeared arbitrary and possibly harmful. Following an Institute of Medicine report, the 2005 Dietary Guidelines quietly began to reverse the government’s campaign against dietary fat, increasing the upper limit to 35 percent — and also, for the first time, recommending a lower limit of 20 percent.

Yet, this major change went largely unnoticed by federal food policy makers. The Nutrition Facts panel on all packaged foods continued to use, and still uses today, the older 30 percent limit on total fat. And the Food and Drug Administration continues to regulate health claims based on total fat, regardless of the food source. In March, the F.D.A. formally warned the manufacturer of Kind snack bars to stop marketing their products as “healthy” when they exceeded decades-old limits on total and saturated fat — even though the fats in these products mainly come from nuts and healthy vegetable sources.

The “We Can!” program, run by the National Institutes of Health, recommends that kids “eat almost anytime” fat-free salad dressing, ketchup, diet soda and trimmed beef, but only “eat sometimes or less often” all vegetables with added fat, nuts, peanut butter, tuna canned in oil and olive oil. Astoundingly, the National School Lunch Program bans whole milk, but allows sugar-sweetened skim milk.

Consumers didn’t notice, either. Based on years of low-fat messaging, most Americans still actively avoid dietary fat, while eating far too much refined carbohydrates. This fear of fat also drives industry formulations, with heavy marketing of fat-reduced products of dubious health value.

Recent research has established the futility of focusing on low-fat foods. Confirming many other observations, large randomized trials in 2006 and 2013 showed that a low-fat diet had no significant benefits for heart disease, stroke, diabetes or cancer risks, while a high-fat, Mediterranean-style diet rich in nuts or extra-virgin olive oil — exceeding 40 percent of calories in total fat — significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, diabetes and long-term weight gain. Other studies have shown that high-fat diets are similar to, or better than, low-fat diets for short-term weight loss, and that types of foods, rather than fat content, relate to long-term weight gain.

This is not to say that high-fat diets are always healthy, or low-fat diets always harmful. But rather than focusing on total fat or other numbers on the back of the package, the emphasis should be on eating more minimally processed fruits, nuts, vegetables, beans, fish, yogurt, vegetable oils and whole grains in place of refined grains, white potatoes, added sugars and processed meats. How much we eat is also determined by what we eat: Cutting calories without improving food quality rarely produces long-term weight loss.

Recognizing this new evidence, the scientists on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, for the first time in 35 years have sent recommendations to the government without any upper limit on total fat. In addition, reduced-fat foods were specifically not recommended for obesity prevention. Instead, the committee encouraged consumption according to healthful food-based diet patterns.

The limit on total fat is an outdated concept, an obstacle to sensible change that promotes harmful low-fat foods, undermines efforts to limit refined grains and added sugars, and discourages the food industry from developing products higher in healthy fats. Fortunately, the people behind the Dietary Guidelines understand that. Will the government, policy makers and the food industry take notice this time?

Correction: July 9, 2015
In the print edition, the byline with this article misspelled the surname of one of the co-authors. He is Dariush Mozaffarian, not Mozzafarian.

Dariush Mozaffarian is dean ­of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. David S. Ludwig is the director of the Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and the author of the forthcoming book “Always Hungry? Conquer Cravings, Retrain Your Fat Cells, and Lose Weight Permanently.”




I’ve been hearing about what to eat and what to avoid all my life, and I’m just not going to abide by any one regimen. I eat what I want to. In general, however, I gave up most fried foods around ten years ago, and some of them like French fried potatoes just aren’t tasty enough to eat except once in six months or so when I begin to crave them. When that happens, I like a McDonalds’ sized serving with salt and ketchup on them, and maybe a small hamburger to go with them. Every four months or so I go to Popeye’s and get two of their mildly spicy chicken thighs and a biscuit. That cures the desire for that flavor. At home I broil chicken every month or two with no breading. For my daily diet I eat a serving of green or mixed vegetables and two of fruit most days. I haven’t been trying to count calories, but my weight is going down by one or two pounds at every doctor’s visit for the last five months. I’m still a size 12 to 14, but considering my age that’s not too bad. As for all the big fuss over fat, there have also been comments through the years on the need for some fat, especially plant fat and fish fats. I believe the key is to avoid too much of any one thing nor, on the other hand, the total elimination from the diet of others. Balance is the key.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/confederate-flag-south-carolina-statehouse-grounds-comes-down/

After 54 years, Confederate flag comes down in S.C.
CBS/AP
July 10, 2015

Photograph -- The Confederate flag is lowered from South Carolina Statehouse grounds after 54-year presence there, July 10, 2015. CBS

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The Confederate flag was lowered from the grounds of the South Carolina Statehouse on Friday, ending its 54-year presence there and marking a stunning political reversal in a state where many thought the rebel banner would fly indefinitely.

The turnabout seemed unthinkable before the June 17 massacre of nine black parishioners - including a state senator - at a Charleston church during a Bible study. Dylann Roof, a white man who was photographed with the Confederate flag, is charged in the shooting deaths, and authorities have called the killings a hate crime.

The massacre reignited calls to remove Confederate flags and symbols across the South and around the nation.

The crowd of thousands chanted "USA" and "hey, hey, hey, goodbye" as the flag was lowered by an honor guard of South Carolina troopers. Gov. Nikki Haley stood on the Statehouse steps and did not speak, though she nodded in the direction of the crowd after someone shouted: "Thank you governor."

President Obama took to Twitter to mark the historic moment:

President ObamaVerified account
‏@POTUS South Carolina taking down the confederate flag - a signal of good will and healing, and a meaningful step towards a better future.

Two troopers rolled the flag and tied it up with a string and handed it to a black trooper who brought it to the Statehouse steps and handed it to a state archivist. The governor clapped when it was handed to the archivist.

A van was to take the flag to the nearby Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum. There, it eventually will be housed in a multimillion-dollar shrine lawmakers promised to build as part of a deal to get a bill passed removing the flag.

The flag was raised over the South Carolina Capitol dome in 1961 to protest integration. It was moved in 2000 to the 30-foot flagpole in front of the Statehouse. Many thought it would stay there.

Now, even that flagpole will be torn down, but no timetable is set on that.

People who supported removing the flag chanted "take it down" before the ceremony and vastly outnumbered those who were upset about the move.

"It feels so good to be out here and be happy about it," said Ronald D. Barton, 52, a pastor who also was at the ceremony in 2000.

Haley did not answer questions about the upcoming ceremony, but earlier Friday on NBC's "Today" show, she said: "No one should ever drive by the Statehouse and feel pain. No one should ever drive by the Statehouse and feel like they don't belong."

South Carolina's leaders first flew the battle flag over the Statehouse dome in 1961 to mark the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. It remained there to represent official opposition to the civil rights movement.

Decades later, mass protests against the flag by those who said it was a symbol of racism and white supremacy led to a compromise in 2000 with lawmakers who insisted that it symbolized Southern heritage and states' rights. The two sides came to an agreement to move the flag from the dome to a 30-foot pole next to a Confederate monument in front of the Statehouse.

The flag came down 23 days after the massacre of state Sen. Clementa Pinckney and eight others inside Charleston's Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Haley signed the bill with 13 pens. Nine of them went to the families of the victims.

Authorities say they believe the killings were racially motivated. By posing with the Confederate flag before the shootings, Roof, who has not yet entered a plea to nine counts of murder, convinced some that the flag's reputation for white supremacy and racial oppression had trumped its symbolism of Southern heritage and ancestral pride.

On Friday, artist Ernest Lee came to the Statehouse with a framed portrait of all nine victims. He said he's been invited to the Charleston church on Sunday to present his artwork. He said he wished more people would turn to art for inspiration.

"If they did, there wouldn't be so much hate and violence," he said.

A woman who was arrested last month for removing the Confederate flag from the front of the South Carolina Statehouse told CBSN that she did it because the banner is a symbol of white supremacy, hatred and racial terror.

"I just felt that it was very important that it be a group of citizens ... who go up and bring that flag down - even if they put it back up a minute later - just to know that's how strongly we felt about it," Bree Newsome said last week.




“The crowd of thousands chanted "USA" and "hey, hey, hey, goodbye" as the flag was lowered by an honor guard of South Carolina troopers. Gov. Nikki Haley stood on the Statehouse steps and did not speak, though she nodded in the direction of the crowd after someone shouted: "Thank you governor." ….. A van was to take the flag to the nearby Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum. There, it eventually will be housed in a multimillion-dollar shrine lawmakers promised to build as part of a deal to get a bill passed removing the flag. The flag was raised over the South Carolina Capitol dome in 1961 to protest integration. …. People who supported removing the flag chanted "take it down" before the ceremony and vastly outnumbered those who were upset about the move. "It feels so good to be out here and be happy about it," said Ronald D. Barton, 52, a pastor who also was at the ceremony in 2000. …. . By posing with the Confederate flag before the shootings, Roof, who has not yet entered a plea to nine counts of murder, convinced some that the flag's reputation for white supremacy and racial oppression had trumped its symbolism of Southern heritage and ancestral pride. …. . He said he's been invited to the Charleston church on Sunday to present his artwork. He said he wished more people would turn to art for inspiration. "If they did, there wouldn't be so much hate and violence," he said.”

Gov. Nikki Haley said these memorable words on this mornings NBC Today show, "No one should ever drive by the Statehouse and feel pain. No one should ever drive by the Statehouse and feel like they don't belong." This is my sentiment exactly. When I was in grammar and middle schools we were taught in our textbooks to be proud of the fact that the US is “the melting pot” in which people from all over the world blend, making their individual contributions to the whole of our culture here. Likewise, on the Statue of Liberty we can read Emma Lazarus’s beautiful poem “The New Colossus” –


“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


I wish I could say that we have always lived up to this ideal in a perfect manner, which we certainly have not, but I hate to go through yet another of those time periods when the fear and utter disrespect toward foreigners, those of different religions and the needy rule the atmosphere in this country. You can rest assured that I would never vote for Donald Trump for any office, even dog catcher. As citizens we must be aware that if a twisted, evil, un-American right-leaning version of our Constitution and laws were to be enacted by the followers of the Tea Party, we might never get it back in place again as it should be. We also could get ourselves into a nuclear war or lose our most basic rights before many of our citizens are even aware of the changes. As a result, I have always read the news even before I began to do this blog.





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/08/421279312/medicare-to-pay-for-voluntary-end-of-life-counseling

Medicare Plans To Pay For Voluntary End-Of-Life Counseling
Krishnadev Calamur
July 8, 2015

Medicare says that starting Jan. 1, 2016, it plans to pay doctors to counsel patients about end-of-life care.

Julie Rovner, senior correspondent with Kaiser Health News, tells our Newscast unit that many medical groups, including the American Medical Association, have long recommended the move.

"This is actually pretty much the same provision that created the huge outcry in 2009 when it was added ... to the Affordable Care Act," Julie says. "It would allow doctors to be reimbursed for talking to patients about what they want to do about end-of-life care; not necessarily at their end of life, but before that."

Counseling would be voluntary for the patients.

The announcement comes just weeks after a Supreme Court decision solidified the Affordable Care Act. Julie tells Newscast that decision might have prompted Medicare officials to conclude that "it was safe politically ... to go ahead with this."

The Associated Press adds:

"Supporters say counseling would give patients more control and free families from tortuous decisions. Even so, there are often no simple answers. Patients may want less invasive care if they believe they will soon die, but predicting when death will happen is notoriously inexact. Terminal patients can live for years, potentially complicating a choice of less intensive treatment.

"Interested parties will have 60 days to comment on the new regulation before it is finalized."

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who repeatedly sponsored bills seeking to improve Medicare's support for end-of-life planning, applauded the decision in a statement:

"Patients and their families should be encouraged to think about how they want to be treated at the end of their life and to express their goals, values, and preferences to their physicians. I encourage them, as well as providers and advocates, to support this proposed benefit.

"I'm confident the Obama Administration will consider all of the available social and medical evidence in favor of advance care planning to finalize this decision in the coming months."




“Medicare says that starting Jan. 1, 2016, it plans to pay doctors to counsel patients about end-of-life care. Julie Rovner, senior correspondent with Kaiser Health News, tells our Newscast unit that many medical groups, including the American Medical Association, have long recommended the move. "This is actually pretty much the same provision that created the huge outcry in 2009 when it was added ... to the Affordable Care Act," Julie says. …. Counseling would be voluntary for the patients. The announcement comes just weeks after a Supreme Court decision solidified the Affordable Care Act. …. Even so, there are often no simple answers. Patients may want less invasive care if they believe they will soon die, but predicting when death will happen is notoriously inexact. Terminal patients can live for years, potentially complicating a choice of less intensive treatment. …. "I'm confident the Obama Administration will consider all of the available social and medical evidence in favor of advance care planning to finalize this decision in the coming months."

This is great! I have had occasional thoughts of lying in a hospital bed in a coma for months or years. I have a document to be filled in with my wishes from United Healthcare, my insurance company, and it’s almost finished. I need to do it and hand it in to my doctor soon.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-ag-swanky-new-york-eatery-kept-workers-tips/

Swanky New York eatery kept workers' tips
By KATE GIBSON MONEYWATCH
July 3, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Per Se designer Adam Tihany on creating high-end dining experiences

Critically acclaimed Manhattan restaurant Per Se will fork over $500,000 to settle claims it pocketed gratuities that should have gone to employees who worked at private-dining events.

The settlement, announced Thursday by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, centered on a 20 percent surcharge in the restaurant's contracts with customers for private dining and banquet services from January 2011 through September 2012.

Per Se, whose prix-fixe tasting menus cost $310 before drinks, tax and tip, violated state labor law by using funds generated by the "service charge" to cover its operations, while telling some customers who inquired about the fee that it was akin to a gratuity, Schneiderman's office stated.

The agreement reached with the three Michelin-starred Per Se indicated that the state's probe of the restaurant did not show that Per Se was aware that it was violating a requirement, which took effect in January 2011, that it clearly state that charge was not a gratuity.

"Our employees were never short-changed and no monies intended for employees were withheld," Per Se said in a statement. "According to the AG, Per Se should have made it clearer that that this charge was not a gratuity. Per Se revised this language on its own, well before it ever heard from the AG's office, and has been in compliance for nearly three years."

Per Se workers deprived of "hard-earned tips" during the 21-month period will now be compensated, Schneiderman stated in a news release.

Including overtime and gratuities, a waiter at Per Se earns approximately $116,000 a year, the restaurant said, with a spokeswoman unable to break out how much of the figure came from overtime and tips.

"Per Se follows the European model. Customers are not obliged to tip, but some do of course," the spokeswoman said.

Wait staff at Per Se, touted as New York City's best restaurant by the New York Times, are paid $16.60 to $28 an hour, and are eligible for overtime and gratuities, according to Schneiderman's findings.




I really hate companies like Per-Se. First, they are ripping off the public with that notice that 20% will be added to the guest’s meal price, while giving the impression that it is a tip for the server, but it’s really going to the profits for the restaurant. All they need, for goodness’ sake, is the menu prices and the tax. I’ve seen that kind of statement in one restaurant in NC which caters to very well-to-do people who will probably pay it without making a complaint. I think they are abominable, and the food can't possibly be good enough to make up for it.

Second, the waiter or waitress only gets the flat rate of pay and “overtime and gratuities” – though the article states that the amount will VARY – why? Will men be paid more than women, perhaps, or whites more than people of color? “Wait staff at Per Se, touted as New York City's best restaurant by the New York Times, are paid $16.60 to $28 an hour, and are eligible for overtime and gratuities.” Who gets $28.00 and who gets $16.60? Of course, if they are guaranteed to receive “approximately $116,000 a year,” that is certainly a fair income if all workers are being treated equally. Still, I’d like to see that mandatory 20% eliminated and the simple cost of the meal be billed. I wouldn’t make a very good wealthy person because I never want to pay more than the actual value of anything that I buy.





OFFICER TRAINING AND TECHNIQUE


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/yorks-finest-beat-innocent-teen-boy-autism-front-home/

Two of New York’s Finest Beat an Innocent Teen Boy With Autism in Front of His Home
By Matt Agorist on July 8, 2015

New York, NY — 17-year-old Troy Canales was hanging out just outside of his Bronx home last November when two NYPD cops pulled up to harass him.

Canales has autism, and when people talk to him, he has a very hard time making eye contact. Apparently this lack of eye contact led to a brutal interaction between Canales and police.

The 17-year-old boy was thrown to the ground, he was then punched in the face, arrested and hauled off to the precinct stationhouse where he was questions and then released with no charges, according to a lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that police in New York are entirely untrained in how to deal with people who have special needs. However, anyone who has seen the myriad of videos showing police kill mentally ill people, does not need a lawsuit to tell them that police are terribly incompetent at dealing with those who have special needs.

“The New York City Police Department’s practices, procedures, training and rules, including those in the NYPD Patrol Guide, do not account for, instruct on, delineate, or provide guidelines for Police Officer communication and interaction with people with developmental disabilities and autism in a constitutionally adequate manner,” lawyer Carmen Giordano wrote in the lawsuit.

In an interview with DNAinfo, Canales said he was “minding my own business, when I saw a cop car turn the corner. And then I saw the cop car stop their vehicle and got out.”

“They said, ‘What are you doing?’ And I said I wasn’t doing nothing,” he said.

He was then thrown to the ground and pinned down while an officer punched him in the face, according to the lawsuit.

“All I see is my baby on the ground with a cop on his back,” Canales’ mother, Alyson Valentine told DNAinfo. “And they wouldn’t even give me any indication of the reason why.”

“I think maybe he didn’t have eye contact with them. Maybe that could have been a problem,” she added. “When he goes outside he thinks he’s normal but he’s not really normal, so he does things that people don’t really understand.”

According to the complaint, Canales, an unarmed teen boy with autism, caused one of the officers to “fear for his life” when they talked to him, which prompted their brutal response.

According to Canales’ mother, her son was held in the jail for an hour and then released. As they were walking out of the stationhouse, an NYPD captain told her, “I’m sorry that this happened, but things like this happen,’” according to Valentine.

In other words…. Sorry we beat up your innocent son ma’am, but we were just doing our jobs, and we have to make it home to our families.

After being beaten by the ones he used to trust for protection, Canales regressed due to the trauma. Valentine said he stopped going outside and stayed in his room for a month, which forced her to seek psychological help.

“He stayed in his room, and that’s not like him. Even the coldest day, he always goes outside,” she said.

A mother, who once told her son to call the police if he ever needed help, now teaches him how to protect himself from police.

“I never told him how to behave if a cop stopped him,” she said. “If a cop comes to you, put your hands up, you know. Show them your hands so that way they wouldn’t feel a threat. But I never thought to tell him that because I never felt that he was capable of doing anything to get himself in a situation.”

With the instance of autism on the rise in the US, it is frightening to think about all of the potential future interactions of incompetent officers and how they will treat the next special needs person they come across.




“The 17-year-old boy was thrown to the ground, he was then punched in the face, arrested and hauled off to the precinct stationhouse where he was questions and then released with no charges, according to a lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that police in New York are entirely untrained in how to deal with people who have special needs. However, anyone who has seen the myriad of videos showing police kill mentally ill people, does not need a lawsuit to tell them that police are terribly incompetent at dealing with those who have special needs. …. According to the complaint, Canales, an unarmed teen boy with autism, caused one of the officers to “fear for his life” when they talked to him, which prompted their brutal response. According to Canales’ mother, her son was held in the jail for an hour and then released. As they were walking out of the stationhouse, an NYPD captain told her, “I’m sorry that this happened, but things like this happen,’” according to Valentine. In other words…’. Sorry we beat up your innocent son ma’am, but we were just doing our jobs, and we have to make it home to our families.’ After being beaten by the ones he used to trust for protection, Canales regressed due to the trauma. Valentine said he stopped going outside and stayed in his room for a month, which forced her to seek psychological help.” The only good news in this case is that the boy lived.

“The New York City Police Department’s practices, procedures, training and rules, including those in the NYPD Patrol Guide, do not account for, instruct on, delineate, or provide guidelines for Police Officer communication and interaction with people with developmental disabilities and autism in a constitutionally adequate manner,” lawyer Carmen Giordano wrote in the lawsuit.” Some good news here is that the family is suing the NYPD. More pictures, videos, better federal and local laws, and definitely more law suits will bring better police training and behavior – at least after an adjustment period. For a month or so after Ferguson various police officers and even supervisors were vocal in their anger as well as in self-defense. Within a few weeks, however, a number of news articles appeared about cities which were actively trying to improve their own training and supervision of officers with the goal of ending these relational problems, so bringing cases to the light of day via the media has been helpful.

If the US Congress would write a comprehensive and fair law that covers what officers are expected to do and how, how they should be trained and selected, what educational background they need including the study of psychology and at least a little in counseling technique to develop their skills by practice, I think there would be even more progress. That way officers would become more adept at reducing the danger and stress of interactions with police, and for the officers, with the “dangerous” mentally disturbed people such as this autistic teenager. I must mention that there have been news articles already about how much better some police officers are able to perform communication tasks than these often shocking “bad apples,” and that is a large part of what police officers have to do every day. In addition, I would like to see no more of these statements that the officer “feared for his life.” I looked that up on the net and it’s a lawyer’s phraseology that I believe officers are being specifically taught during their training with the purpose of keeping the officers out of the slammer. It is his legal excuse for avoiding punishment for assaulting or even killing a citizen. See the activeresponsetraining.net article below.

A very interesting article from a few days ago was about the LAPD, however, which is very hopeful. In that city they have a sizeable number of mental health workers on the police staff who go out with officers when psychosis or other mental problems are suspected. Of course that is when the 911 call mentions that a citizen is having a problem of that sort. In this case, it was up to the officers at the scene to detect the need for the specialized group to go out. Unfortunately they knew nothing about Autism, and instead interpreted the averted eyes as hostility or not being sufficiently “compliant.”

That matter of black kids averting their eyes was mentioned years ago in an article as something that white teachers were having a problem with – black children tend to be taught by their parents not to return an adult’s gaze directly, saying “Don’t you eyeball me, boy!” -- whereas white parents tend to demand that their kids “look at me.” Personally, I think both demands are harsh to the point of being abusive, and a more natural interaction would be to meet the other’s eye sometimes and sometimes look away. That’s how adults in dealing with other adults do it so it’s more respectful. In addition, it is simply a more gentle way of behaving, and I personally think we need more gentleness and less force in our society in general. There’s enough stress in our daily life here without parental browbeating while training kids. Besides, that kind of forcefulness with kids can intimidate them and make them underconfident in life as a whole, making them the natural prey to bullies and less able to succeed in school and at work. Depression and personality problems are likely to emerge. Kindness and compassion, on the other hand, relieves the tension of whatever subject is being discussed, and does not arouse feelings from anger to hatred in the child. More logic is transmitted by the encounter, as well, and the kid is reassured that his parents do love him as they should.



http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/im-in-fear-for-my-life

“I’m in Fear for My Life!”
Written by Greg Ellifritz
Posted on 8 September 2014

“I’m in fear for my life!”

I’ve heard this phrase pop up a couple of times in the last month.

The first time was during a close quarters shooting class I was teaching. The students were working a weapon retention drill and I had instructed them to use loud, repetitive verbal commands when defending their firearm from a takeaway attempt.

One of my students got his gun back from his attacker in a scenario, cleared his malfunction and then trained his gun on his simulated attacker. The verbal command he yelled was “Stay away from me! I’m in fear for my life and I will shoot you!”

The command sounded forced and unnatural. I asked the student why he chose to use those particular words. He told me “When I say that, the criminal will know that I’ve met the legal standard for use of force and if he continues his attack, I’ll be justified in shooting him.”

I’m not so sure about that…

More recently, I read an article (from an author I respect) that advocated barricading into a safe room in the event someone breaks into your house. The author instructed his readers to yell something like: “I have a gun and am in fear for my life. Leave now!”

How is that phrase tangibly better than merely saying: “I have a gun. Leave now?”

“I’m in fear for my life” is a curious phrase. I don’t think that using it will improve the outcome of your defensive encounter. Telling someone that you are in fear for your life is simply not the same as BEING in fear for your life. It’s not a shortcut to provide some sort of instant justification for shooting someone.

Being in fear for your life is generally grounds for using lethal force only when such fear is objectively reasonable given the circumstances. Your statements have very little bearing on this standard of objective reasonableness. The attacker still must have the ability and opportunity to cause you serious injury in order to justify your shooting. Furthermore, you must reasonably believe that you are in jeopardy of being seriously injured by your attacker.

Let me give you an example…

If I’m physically attacked by an unarmed eight year old girl, do you think I would be justified in shooting her so long as I’ve screamed “I’m in fear for my life?” I hope not. The law doesn’t work that way. Likewise, you won’t be justified in shooting a criminal attacker unless the ability- opportunity-jeopardy standards are met no matter how many times you tell him that you are scared.

Let’s take a look at another issue…

Have you ever been truly scared that you might die? At the moment of impending death did you think or say “I’m in fear for my life?” I’m betting you probably didn’t. And neither has anyone else who has been in true danger. We simply don’t vocalize very well when we’re truly scared. All of our brain’s resources are being put toward working on a solution to ensure our survival. You won’t be waxing eloquently about your perceived fear.

In fact, if I was the attorney prosecuting you for attempted murder, I might use your casual statement against you in court:

“If the defendant was truly as scared as he said he was, why didn’t he try to run away? He didn’t make any effort to escape. Instead he calmly talked to the victim about his fears. That isn’t the action of a person who is really scared to death. The mere fact that the defendant could calmly utter those words is evidence enough to show that he WASN’T scared.”

Can you see how that statement might cause things to go sideways?

Beyond the legal considerations, consider the impact that such a statement will have on the criminal. We know that criminals choose victims who are scared and unable or unwilling to fight back. What message are you sending when you tell your attacker “I’m in fear for my life?” Do you think it will scare him away or do you think it will embolden him to more violent action? My bet is on the latter…

And if you think that those magic words will make the criminal understand that you have somehow met the legal grounds for using deadly force, think again. The dudes attacking you are not legal scholars. If they were, they would likely have a job that doesn’t involve hitting people like you over the head with a steel pipe. The criminal doesn’t know when it’s legal for a citizen to shoot him. More importantly, HE DOESN’T CARE! He’s a criminal. By definition he couldn’t care less about the laws that govern most of the people in this country. He isn’t going to understand the message that you are attempting to communicate.

Words have meaning. It’s important to choose them carefully. Don’t say anything in a defensive encounter that might come back to bite you in the ass.

If you would like to read more articles like this one, please sign up for my email updates. - See more at: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/im-in-fear-for-my-life#sthash.mvLCHeYI.dpuf




“When I say that, the criminal will know that I’ve met the legal standard for use of force and if he continues his attack, I’ll be justified in shooting him.” …. Being in fear for your life is generally grounds for using lethal force only when such fear is objectively reasonable given the circumstances. Your statements have very little bearing on this standard of objective reasonableness. The attacker still must have the ability and opportunity to cause you serious injury in order to justify your shooting. …. By definition he couldn’t care less about the laws that govern most of the people in this country. He isn’t going to understand the message that you are attempting to communicate.”

This article is very interesting for two reasons – first I agree that saying “I fear for my life” sounds pretentious and priggish, and is not going to “throw a scare” into the bad guy. Stopping to face him with a firm and balanced physical stance and then strongly meeting his eye, saying in a loud clear way, “Get away from me or I’ll shoot,” is much smarter. The real goal is not to win a self-defense case in court, but to live through the encounter. But second, the specific phraseology here “I feared for my life,” has shown up in news articles on at least half a dozen cop shootings that were reported within the time period since Ferguson. Officers have been instructed to say that, I believe, with the idea that it may convince a judge and jury to drop the homicide charges that have sometimes been brought against the suspect. Besides, it fits in with the controversial Stand Your Ground Laws in which one is not required to retreat when menaced. The recent Dunn case was of this nature. He tried to claim self-defense, but his story was not believed by the jury.