Friday, August 21, 2015


News Clips For The Day


More about Ashley Madison:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ashley-madison-hack-site-hack-data-dump/story?id=33226531

Ashley Madison Hack: What's Next for the Site After Hack and Data Dump
Aug 21, 2015, 11:51 AM ET
By ALYSSA NEWCOMB

For the 37 million people who signed up for profiles on Ashley Madison, one of the website's selling points was the opportunity to have a discreet extramarital affair.

While there is no telling how many made the connections they were looking for, what has unfolded this week in the wake of the hacking has been a potential nightmare for those users whose secret lives have now been exposed -- and has raised questions about the future of Ashley Madison.

"I think it would be very difficult for them to get any conscious being to sign up in the future that has any regard for their privacy," Robert Siciliano, an online safety expert to Intel Security, told ABC News.

Two Canadian law firms have already joined forces to file a class action lawsuit against Avid Life Media, Ashley Madison's parent company, on behalf of the estimated thousands of Canadian users who were impacted by the breach. Other than a lead plaintiff, it was unknown how many other users have joined the lawsuit. Avid Life Media is headquartered in Toronto.

The company said in a statement to ABC News today that it would "continue to devote significant resources to our security protocols and systems and we continue to support our customers around the world."

"Regardless of the nature of the content, our customers, this company, and its employees are all exercising their legal and individual rights, and all deserve the ability to do so unhindered by outside interference, vigilantism, selective moralizing and judgment," the company added in its statement. "The individual or individuals who are responsible for this straightforward case of theft should be held accountable to the fullest extent of international law."

Avid Life Media has not publicly commented on how the hacker or hackers, who call themselves the Impact Team, were able to breach its system, leaving security experts like Siciliano unable to make observations about anything that could have potentially prevented what Avid Life Media called a "criminal intrusion" into the company's system.

"We are unable to reverse-engineer their process at this time since all they have done is release statements about what has gone wrong," Siciliano said. "They haven't disclosed what could have been done inefficiently and wrong on the inside."

When signing up for the service, Avid Life Media makes it clear that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The privacy policy on Ashley Madison states the company treats "data as an asset that must be protected against loss and unauthorized access" and uses "standard practices and technologies," including firewalls and encryption, to help protect user data from prying eyes.

Now that trust has been breached, even perhaps by no fault of Avid Life Media's, it remains unclear whether users will be willing to once again put their faith in Ashley Madison.

"When you sign up for any online portal, generally there is a privacy policy that suggests members will receive a degree of privacy, and that is with most every online site," Siciliano said. "Why would consumers sign up otherwise?"



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-government-workers-with-sensitive-jobs-used-ashley-madison/

AP: Gov't workers with sensitive jobs used Ashley Madison
August 21, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Hackers expose users of Ashley Madison
Play VIDEO -- After Ashley Madison hacking, potential legal fallout for users

WASHINGTON - U.S. government employees with sensitive jobs in national security or law enforcement were among hundreds of federal workers found to be using government networks to access and pay membership fees to the cheating website Ashley Madison, The Associated Press has learned.

The list includes at least two assistant U.S. attorneys, an information technology administrator in the White House's support staff, a Justice Department investigator, a division chief, and a government hacker and counterterrorism employee at the Homeland Security Department. Others visited from networks operated by the Pentagon.

Federal policies vary by agency as to whether employees could visit websites during work hours like Ashley Madison, which could be considered akin to a dating website. But such use raises questions about what personal business is acceptable - and what websites are OK to visit - for U.S. workers on taxpayer time, especially those with sensitive jobs who could face blackmail.

Hackers this week released detailed records on millions of people registered with the website one month after the break-in at Ashley Madison's parent company, Toronto-based Avid Life Media Inc. The website - whose slogan is, "Life is short. Have an affair" - is marketed to facilitate extramarital affairs.

Few connecting from federal networks had listed government email accounts when subscribing. But the AP was able to trace their government Internet connections, logged by the website over five years and as recently as June. They encompass more than two dozen agencies, such as the departments of State, Justice, Energy, Treasury and Transportation. Others came from House or Senate computer networks.

Records also reveal subscribers signed up using state and municipal government networks nationwide, including those run by the New York Police Department, the nation's largest. "If anything comes to our attention indicating improper use of an NYPD computer, we will look into it and take appropriate action," said the NYPD's top spokesman, Stephen Davis.

The AP is not naming the government subscribers it found because they are not elected officials or accused of a crime.

Many federal customers appeared to use nongovernment email addresses with handles such as "sexlessmarriage," ''soontobesingle" or "latinlovers." Some Justice Department employees also appeared to use prepaid credit cards to help preserve their anonymity but nonetheless connected to the service from their office computers.

"I was doing some things I shouldn't have been doing," a Justice Department investigator told the AP. Asked about the threat of blackmail, the investigator said if prompted he would reveal his actions to his family and employer to prevent it. "I've worked too hard all my life to be a victim of blackmail. That wouldn't happen," he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was deeply embarrassed and not authorized by the government to speak to reporters using his name.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed Thursday the Pentagon was looking into the list of people who used military email addresses. Adultery can be a criminal offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"I'm aware it," Carter said. "Of course it's an issue because conduct is very important. And we expect good conduct on the part of our people. ... The services are looking into it and as well they should be. Absolutely."

The AP's review was the first to reveal that federal workers used their office systems to access the site, based on their Internet Protocol addresses associated with credit card transactions. It focused on searching for government employees in especially sensitive positions who could perhaps become blackmail targets.

The government hacker at the Homeland Security Department, who did not respond to phone or email messages, included photographs of his wife and infant son on his Facebook page. One assistant U.S. attorney declined through a spokesman to speak to the AP, and another did not return phone or email messages.

A White House spokesman said Thursday he could not immediately comment on the matter. The IT administrator in the White House did not return email messages.

While rules can vary by agency, Homeland Security rules, for instance, say devices should be used for only for official purposes. It also prescribes "limited personal use is authorized as long as this use does not interfere with official duties or cause degradation of network services." Employees are barred from using government computers to access "inappropriate sites" including those that are "obscene, hateful, harmful, malicious, hostile, threatening, abusive, vulgar, defamatory, profane, or racially, sexually, or ethnically objectionable."

The hackers who took credit for the break-in had accused the website's owners of deceit and incompetence, and said the company refused to bow to their demands to close the site. Avid Life released a statement calling the hackers criminals. It added that law enforcement in both the U.S. and Canada is investigating and declined comment beyond its statement Tuesday that it was investigating the hackers' claims.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison

Ashley Madison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ashley Madison is a Canada-based online dating service and social networking service marketed to people who are married or in a committed relationship. Its slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair."[4] The website was launched in 2001.[2][5] The name of the site was created from two popular female names, "Ashley" and "Madison".[4]

According to third-party web analytics provider SimilarWeb, the site has more than 124 million visits per month, as of 2015,[6] and is ranked No. 18 among Adult sites.[7]

The company received significant attention on July 15, 2015, after hackers stole all of its customer data—including names, addresses, sexual fantasies and credit card information—and threatened to post all the data online if Ashley Madison and fellow Avid Life Media site EstablishedMen.com were not permanently closed. By July 22, the first names of customers were released by hackers,[8] with all of the user data released on August 18, 2015. More data (including some of the CEO's emails) was released on August 20, 2015. The release included data from customers who paid a $19 fee to have their data deleted.[9]

Membership[edit]

Ashley Madison is a membership website and service based in Canada; its membership includes 39 million people in 46 countries.[8][10]

The company announced plans to launch in Singapore in 2014.[1] However, Singapore's Media Development Authority (MDA) announced that it will not allow Ashley Madison to operate in Singapore as "it promotes adultery and disregards family values".[17]

In response to the ban in Singapore, CEO Noel Biderman told online tech publication e27 that he thinks prohibitions will always backfire. He said, "It’s not too conservative, it’s not too challenging. I think this is an anomaly. We have had success in Japan and Hong Kong. We will have success in Taiwan and Korea. We will find a way to bring this to the Philippines and Thailand. And ultimately, I genuinely believe Ashley Madison will be available to anyone in Singapore who wants to access it. I really believe that."[18]

Advertisements[edit]

Ashley Madison advertises with TV commercials, billboards, and radio ads by the CEO, Noel Biderman.[4]

In 2009, NBC refused an ad submitted by Ashley Madison for the network's broadcast of Super Bowl XLIII.[19] Biderman described the refusal as ridiculous, saying the National Football League's demographic was a core audience for the site, promising to find some way to publicize it.[19]

In December 2009, Ashley Madison attempted to purchase C$200,000 worth of advertising on Toronto Transit Commission streetcars.[20] The plan was rejected after five of the six committee members voted against it. If approved, 10 streetcars would have been skinned with Ashley Madison's slogan: "Life is short. Have an affair."[20] The TTC commissioner showed displeasure with the ads, stating: "When it's a core fundamental value around cheating or lying, we’re not going to let those kinds of ads go on."[21] After the deal was rejected, Biderman offered to subsidize ticket prices by 25 cents if the deal went through. This would have reduced the ticket rate to C$2.50.[20] The offer was declined.

Bids for sports sponsorships[edit]

On February 22, 2010, the company approached the city of Phoenix, Arizona with an offer of $10 million to rename the Sky Harbor Airport to Ashley Madison International Airport for a five-year period, noting the city was in financial trouble. Phoenix rejected the offer.[22][23]

In 2010, Ashley Madison made an offer for the naming rights to the New Meadowlands Stadium.[24] The offer was ignored, with Met Life eventually purchasing the naming rights.

In October 2011, Ashley Madison offered the Italian basketball club Virtus Roma a jersey sponsorship deal worth €1.5 million, much of which would supposedly be spent on returning locked-out NBA player Andrea Bargnani to his homeland. Msgr. Flavio Capucci, a Roman Catholic priest, called the proposal "a betrayal of the value and identity of sport". The player himself denied any role in the deal.[25][26]

Criticism[edit]

Trish McDermott, a consultant who helped found Match.com, accused Ashley Madison of being a "business built on the back of broken hearts, ruined marriages, and damaged families". Biderman responded by stating that the site is "just a platform" and a website or a commercial will not convince anyone to commit adultery.[4][33] According to Biderman, affairs help preserve many marriages.[18]



ABC -- For the 37 million people who signed up for profiles on Ashley Madison, one of the website's selling points was the opportunity to have a discreet extramarital affair. …. Two Canadian law firms have already joined forces to file a class action lawsuit against Avid Life Media, Ashley Madison's parent company, on behalf of the estimated thousands of Canadian users who were impacted by the breach. …. The individual or individuals who are responsible for this straightforward case of theft should be held accountable to the fullest extent of international law." Avid Life Media has not publicly commented on how the hacker or hackers, who call themselves the Impact Team, were able to breach its system.”

CBS -- “U.S. government employees with sensitive jobs in national security or law enforcement were among hundreds of federal workers found to be using government networks to access and pay membership fees to the cheating website Ashley Madison, The Associated Press has learned. The list includes at least two assistant U.S. attorneys, an information technology administrator in the White House's support staff, a Justice Department investigator, a division chief, and a government hacker and counterterrorism employee at the Homeland Security Department. Others visited from networks operated by the Pentagon. …. Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed Thursday the Pentagon was looking into the list of people who used military email addresses. Adultery can be a criminal offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. …. Hackers this week released detailed records on millions of people registered with the website one month after the break-in at Ashley Madison's parent company, Toronto-based Avid Life Media Inc. The website - whose slogan is, "Life is short. Have an affair" - is marketed to facilitate extramarital affairs. …. They encompass more than two dozen agencies, such as the departments of State, Justice, Energy, Treasury and Transportation. Others came from House or Senate computer networks. Records also reveal subscribers signed up using state and municipal government networks nationwide, including those run by the New York Police Department …. The hackers who took credit for the break-in had accused the website's owners of deceit and incompetence, and said the company refused to bow to their demands to close the site. Avid Life released a statement calling the hackers criminals. It added that law enforcement in both the U.S. and Canada is investigating and declined comment beyond its statement Tuesday that it was investigating the hackers' claims.”

Unless I’m missing it, the name of the group who hacked Avid Life has not yet been released except for the handle Impact Team. “AP” is the information source given, and “law enforcement” in the US and Canada, plus the Pentagon are said to be investigating those who were caught in the hack. I wonder if this is going to be another claim against Obama for having lax procedures under his watch. This looks too widespread for that, but I will look for further articles on this subject. I am sorry to see that so many men, and presumably women, are going to the Net with the whole aim of committing adultery. When it happens between people who are thrown together on the job it’s understandable – hormonal interactions do happen – but this situation is more cold-blooded than that. Fairly highly placed people are involved. I wonder if there is some underground link between the individual visitors to the website from the NYPD to the various US departments, and even the House and Senate. I also want to know who performed the hack. The Wikipedia article on the site shows that the government of Singapore, the Toronto Transit Commission, the city of Phoenix AZ and NBC all refused to allow them to use their venues for advertising. That makes me feel better. Sometimes “Just say no,” works.






http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-political-fight-over-the-term-anchor-babies/

The political fight over the term "anchor babies"
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
August 20, 2015

Play VIDEO -- GOP rivals react to Trump's immigration reform plan
Play VIDEO -- Trump releases specifics on his immigration policy
Play VIDEO -- Jeb Bush dismisses Donald Trump's immigration plans


When Donald Trump proposed an end to birthright citizenship, he said that he didn't believe "anchor babies" -- a term used to refer to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrant parents -- were actual American citizens.

"What happens is they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby," Trump said on Fox News Tuesday. He went on to say that he'd like to find out "whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don't think they are."

Trump's remarks sparked an immediate backlash -- but like many of his comments, the firestorm didn't focus so much on the content of his policies as the way he articulated them.

In this case, it's the billionaire's contentious use of the term "anchor babies" that has immigration activists, and some Democrats, up in arms.

At a press conference Wednesday, a reporter asked Trump if he was aware the term "anchor baby" was an offensive and hurtful term.

"You mean it's not politically correct, and yet everybody uses it?" Trump said in New Hampshire. He suggested the reporter give him another phrase to use. The reporter suggested calling them "the American-born [children] of undocumented immigrants."

Trump responded, "I'll use the word 'anchor baby.'"

But the businessman, known for his bombastic rhetoric, isn't the only one using - and defending - the phrase.

Favored establishment candidate Jeb Bush, while deriding the significant costs of Trump's overall immigration proposals, did agree that if "pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement."

"That's [the] legitimate side of this," Bush said on the conservative radio show "Morning in America" on Wednesday. "Better enforcement so that you don't have these, you know, 'anchor babies,' as they're described, coming into the country."

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton criticized the term as quickly as it entered the 2016 political lexicon, pouncing on Bush for his use of "anchor babies." She posted a Twitter response to a Politico story on Bush's call for greater enforcement of "anchor babies":

Hillary Clinton ✔@HillaryClinton
They're called babies. https://twitter.com/politico/status/634109158380408834 …
6:14 PM - 19 Aug 2015

And soon after, Clinton's campaign released a bilingual video linking Bush to Trump's immigration policies. In an email, Clinton campaign spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa attacked the former Florida governor for "following Donald Trump's hateful rhetoric."


The controversy over the term isn't new, especially where Republicans are concerned.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment -- which reads ""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside" -- guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

In 2013, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tried to introduce legislation ending birthright citizenship, saying in statement, "The current practice of extending U.S. citizenship to hundreds of thousands of 'anchor babies' must end because it creates a magnet for illegal immigration into our country."

And when former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, ran for president in 2011, she talked about a bill that would bar citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, saying, according to the Des Moines Register, 'We've got to end this anchor-baby program,' she said.

The term 'anchor baby' is thought to originate in the related term 'anchor child,' which was used in reference to Vietnamese boat people in the early 1980s.

The Post goes on to say that the specific term started its political rise in 2006, when a Republican majority in the House pushed for a bill erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and imposing harsher penalties for illegal immigrants. According to the Post, it was in the ensuing debate that the term "anchor baby" rose to political prominence, particularly among proponents of tightening immigration restrictions. The New York Times even listed it as a buzzword of the year, defining it as a "derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant."

"Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens," lexicographer Grant Barrett wrote in the Times, "they can later act as a sponsor for other family members." In fact, children are required to wait until they're 21 years old before they're legally able to sponsor a parent or sibling, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The phrase has seen a resurgence in the latest presidential election cycle -- and it's brought a heaping of criticism with it.

On the campaign trail, Jeb Bush became agitated with constant condemnation of the term. When a reporter asked Bush in New Hampshire if he considered the words "bombastic language," Bush testily replied that "no, it isn't."

"Here's the deal -- what I said was that it's commonly referred to that," he told reporters Thursday. "I didn't use it as my own language."

And some, like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, remained unapologetic for throwing around the words.

Jindal told Fox News on Thursday that he was "happy to use the term" and said "folks today are too easily offended."

"They're too politically correct," Jindal said, supporting Trump's call to end birthright citizenship. "The real issue here -- yeah I'm happy to use the term -- but the reality is the real issue here is we need to secure our border."




“Favored establishment candidate Jeb Bush, while deriding the significant costs of Trump's overall immigration proposals, did agree that if "pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement." "That's [the] legitimate side of this," Bush said on the conservative radio show "Morning in America" on Wednesday. "Better enforcement so that you don't have these, you know, 'anchor babies,' as they're described, coming into the country." Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton criticized the term as quickly as it entered the 2016 political lexicon, pouncing on Bush for his use of "anchor babies." She posted a Twitter response to a Politico story on Bush's call for greater enforcement of "anchor babies":

Hillary Clinton ✔@HillaryClinton
They're called babies. https://twitter.com/politico/status/634109158380408834 …
6:14 PM - 19 Aug 2015

And soon after, Clinton's campaign released a bilingual video linking Bush to Trump's immigration policies. In an email, Clinton campaign spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa attacked the former Florida governor for "following Donald Trump's hateful rhetoric." …. The term 'anchor baby' is thought to originate in the related term 'anchor child,' which was used in reference to Vietnamese boat people in the early 1980s. The Post goes on to say that the specific term started its political rise in 2006, when a Republican majority in the House pushed for a bill erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and imposing harsher penalties for illegal immigrants. According to the Post, it was in the ensuing debate that the term "anchor baby" rose to political prominence, particularly among proponents of tightening immigration restrictions. The New York Times even listed it as a buzzword of the year, defining it as a "derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant."

So what are they really proposing? That every person born in the US from now on must APPLY FOR CITIZENSHIP and possibly pass some test such as a stint in the Army, a college degree, a specified amount of money in the bank, ownership of a house? How do other countries do this? I found an interesting article about this. The article is very long. I chose Germany as a nation similar to the US in values. Germany, since Jan. 1, 2000, gives citizenship by birth if “one parent has lived in Germany for 8 years.” So maybe we need a rule of thumb like that. If a person can succeed in working, paying taxes and supporting himself/herself in the US for 8 years, his/her child can be a citizen. See below:


http://www.multiplecitizenship.com/worldsummary.html

“Citizenship Laws of the World”

This is a extensive and well produced survey of world citizenship laws which was produced by Office of Personnel Management of the US government in 2000/2001, as a resource for dealing with multiple citizenship issues.

The directory provides a synopsis of the citizenship laws for 206 countries. It contains a wealth of information about multiple citizenship and the various ways that different countries approach it. The laws and rules of each country are individually summarized.

The directory provides an simplified overview, not a detailed legal analysis. It is a quick reference document focussed on some of the mechanics of citizenship, but it does not provide a complete picture of any of the countries listed, including the US itself. Keep in mind that citizenship laws, rules and interpretations are constantly changing, so some entries could be out of date. It is apparently not unusual to encounter differences between stated and actual practice in implementation of a country's citizenship laws.

GERMANY


CITIZENSHIP: Based upon German citizenship law, the principle of descent from the parents (jus sanguinis), and, after January 1, 2000, jus soli.

BY BIRTH: Birth within the Federal Republic of Germany does not automatically confer citizenship. However, from January 1, 2000, citizenship will be acquired by birth in Germany if one parent has lived in the country for eight years.

BY DESCENT: Child born in wedlock whose father or mother is a citizen of Germany. Child born out of wedlock whose father is stateless or unknown and whose mother is a citizen of Germany. Child born out of wedlock to a foreign woman and a German father will be granted German citizenship upon the legitimization (recognition) of the child by the German father.

BY NATURALIZATION: At the discretion of the German naturalization authority; 8 years residence in Germany is a requirement.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP: In principle, not recognized. Exceptions: German citizens abroad who acquire another citizenship can forego the automatic forfeiture of their German citizenship by obtaining a decree from the German authorities permitting them to retain their German citizenship. After January 1, 2000, dual citizenship is allowed until age 23.

LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP:

VOLUNTARY: The law allows Germans to petition for a release from German citizenship if they have applied for the acquisition of foreign citizenship and the authorities of the foreign state have stated that they will be naturalized. Petitions may be directed to the federal government in Germany or the nearest German Embassy.

INVOLUNTARY: Voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship without having received a decree from the German authorities permitting concurrent retention of German citizenship.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chief-stands-behind-st-louis-cops-in-fatal-shooting/

Chief stands behind St. Louis cops in fatal shooting
CBS/AP
August 20, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Arlington, Texas, officer fired after fatally shooting teen



ST. LOUIS -- The St. Louis police chief on Thursday unapologetically defended the fatal shooting of a black 18-year-old who was killed by two white officers in a confrontation that drew protesters and unrest back to the streets.

Protesters pledged to stand firm. Said the director of a group called the Organization for Black Struggle: "We will not go away."

Mansur Ball-Bey, who police said had a handgun, was shot as officers raided a home in a violence-plagued part of north St. Louis. Within an hour of Wednesday's shooting, more than 100 people converged on the scene, taunting officers and decrying the use of deadly force.

A vacant building and at least one car were torched, police said. Officers responded with tear gas and arrested at least nine people on charges of impeding traffic and resisting arrest.

Chief Sam Dotson said that crowd-control tactics were justified because officers were being hit with bottles and bricks and protesters refused to clear out of the roadway.

The scene unfolded less than two weeks after violence marred the anniversary of the day Michael Brown was fatally shot by a white officer in nearby Ferguson. His death launched the national Black Lives Matter movement.

The latest shooting happened while officers were serving a search warrant. They encountered Ball-Bey and another suspect running from the home, police said.

Ball-Bey turned and pointed a handgun at the officers, who shot him, authorities said. He died at the scene.

The handgun found in the dead man's possession had one round in the chamber and 13 more in the magazine, Police Chief Sam Dotson said.

CBS affiliate KMOV reported that a man who lives at the home where the search warrant was being served has been arrested on gun charges.

Roderick Williams was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Police said three of the four guns found after the shooting were stolen.

Authorities said a woman inside the home was questioned but then released.

Some protesters questioned the police claim that the suspect was armed. Distrust of police accounts has been common since Brown's death.

On the night of Brown's anniversary, 18-year-old Tyrone Harris Jr. was wounded by plainclothes officers in Ferguson when he allegedly first fired at them. His father labeled that account "a bunch of lies" and insisted his son was unarmed.

Later, police released surveillance video recorded moments before the shooting that appeared to show the younger Harris pulling a handgun from his waistband and running in the direction of the officers.

St. Louis police chief Sam Dotson defended officers who shot an 18-year-old man to death while serving a warrant. "I understand people's skepticism," Dotson said Thursday. "But don't let social media and innuendo drive what you believe to be true. You have to let the facts speak."

Mayor Francis Slay pledged an "independent and transparent" investigation of the shooting but stood behind police.

"The police were in this neighborhood doing their job," Slay said at a meeting with the St. Louis Clergy Coalition, a group of black ministers. The meeting was at a church about a block from the shooting site.

The police chief and mayor said protesters should have their voices heard, but they differentiated between those who gather to protest and others who create mischief.

"We have to be mindful of the fact that there are criminals who were at the protest as cover for their activity," Slay said.

Activists said the police response to the protesters was unnecessarily "militaristic" and an affront to free-speech rights.

The scene of Wednesday's shooting -- known as the Fountain Park neighborhood -- is a historically high-crime area that has seen an uptick in violence, with 127 confirmed homicides this year. There were 159 homicides in all of 2014 and 120 the year before that.




“The St. Louis police chief on Thursday unapologetically defended the fatal shooting of a black 18-year-old who was killed by two white officers in a confrontation that drew protesters and unrest back to the streets. Protesters pledged to stand firm. Said the director of a group called the Organization for Black Struggle: "We will not go away." Mansur Ball-Bey, who police said had a handgun, was shot as officers raided a home in a violence-plagued part of north St. Louis. Within an hour of Wednesday's shooting, more than 100 people converged on the scene, taunting officers and decrying the use of deadly force. …. CBS affiliate KMOV reported that a man who lives at the home where the search warrant was being served has been arrested on gun charges. Roderick Williams was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Police said three of the four guns found after the shooting were stolen. …. St. Louis police chief Sam Dotson defended officers who shot an 18-year-old man to death while serving a warrant. "I understand people's skepticism," Dotson said Thursday. "But don't let social media and innuendo drive what you believe to be true. You have to let the facts speak." Mayor Francis Slay pledged an "independent and transparent" investigation of the shooting but stood behind police. "The police were in this neighborhood doing their job," Slay said at a meeting with the St. Louis Clergy Coalition, a group of black ministers. The meeting was at a church about a block from the shooting site. The police chief and mayor said protesters should have their voices heard, but they differentiated between those who gather to protest and others who create mischief.” …. Activists said the police response to the protesters was unnecessarily "militaristic" and an affront to free-speech rights.

A black man named Mansur Bal-Bey was shot while in possession of a hand gun in a house where four hand guns were found, three of which were stolen. The police were confronted “while serving a warrant” in a high crime neighborhood. Roderick Williams, also in the house, was arrested on a gun charge. Some 100 protestors were at the scene an hour later, and police have charged that some of them are “criminals” hiding with the protesters. There was no video evidence presented with the news article showing what occurred, so we have to take their word for it, Right? No body cams in use this time. Why not?





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-promises-to-keep-pressure-on-iran/

Obama promises to keep pressure on Iran
AP August 21, 2015

Photograph -- President Barack Obama addresses American University's School of International Service in Washington, District of Columbia, U.S., on Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2015. POOL, GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- United Nations Security Council approves Iran nuke deal

EDGARTOWN, Mass. - President Barack Obama is promising Democratic lawmakers that the U.S. will continue to keep economic pressure on Iran - and keep military options open - if his administration's nuclear deal with Tehran goes through.

Mr. Obama, in a letter addressed to New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, said that if Iran rushes to build a nuclear weapon, "all of the options available to the United States - including the military option - will remain available."

The president also says the U.S. will uphold sanctions targeting Iran's non-nuclear activities, such as its support for Lebanon's Hezbollah group and what Mr. Obama calls Iran's "destabilizing role in Yemen."

Mr. Obama wrote the letter, dated Aug. 19, from Martha's Vineyard, the tony island off the Massachusetts coast where he is in the midst of a two week vacation. While the president has made no public appearances during his vacation, he has been privately reaching out to Democratic lawmakers in a bid to boost support for the Iran deal.

Congress will vote next month on a resolution of disapproval on the accord to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. The president is expected to have to veto the measure, but White House officials and Democratic lawmakers have expressed confidence that there is enough support in the party to block GOP override efforts.

Mr. Obama has picked up crucial support from Democrats in recent days, including Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who said Thursday that while the agreement isn't perfect, it was clear to her that "the world is united behind this agreement with the exception of the government of Israel."

Nadler, who represents a heavily Jewish congressional district, is among the undecided Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer, another influential Jewish lawmaker from New York, announced earlier in the month that he would vote against the agreement.

In his letter to Nadler, Mr. Obama emphasized U.S. support for Israel, saying he views the country's security as sacrosanct. He said he was committed to deepening missile defense funding and other military cooperation with Israel

Mr. Obama's letter to Nadler was first obtained by The New York Times.




“Mr. Obama, in a letter addressed to New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, said that if Iran rushes to build a nuclear weapon, "all of the options available to the United States - including the military option - will remain available." The president also says the U.S. will uphold sanctions targeting Iran's non-nuclear activities, such as its support for Lebanon's Hezbollah group and what Mr. Obama calls Iran's "destabilizing role in Yemen." …. Congress will vote next month on a resolution of disapproval on the accord to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. The president is expected to have to veto the measure, but White House officials and Democratic lawmakers have expressed confidence that there is enough support in the party to block GOP override efforts.”

I generally tend to feel that peace treaties where needed are better than a war, and the Middle East in general is pretty much a war zone. I have seen no sign that Iran is or has any time recently been actively at war with Israel. Why is Israel so hard set against making peaceful bonds over there? Do they fear that every Islamic nation will join in a fight against them? I don’t think most of those nations can overcome their own differences well enough to do that.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-find-evidence-of-prehistoric-massacre-in-europe/

Scientists find evidence of prehistoric massacre in Europe
AP August 17, 2015

Photograph -- Photo released Monday Aug. 17, 2015 by researcher Christian Meyer shows the fractured skull of an about eight-years-old child with a digital mark (3cm=1.18 inch) to show the size. The perimortem cranial injury in the frontal bone of the child that lived in the Stone Age was found on skeletal remains in a grave near Frankfurt, Germany, that bear signs of terrible violence some 7,000 years ago, rare evidence, scientists say, of a massacre among Europe’s prehistoric people. CHRISTIAN MEYER VIA AP

ap405661908794.jpg
Photo released Monday Aug. 17, 2015, by researcher Christian Meyer shows the fractured skull of an about 3-5 years-old child with a digital mark (3cm=1.18 inch) to show the size. The perimortem cranial injury of the child that lived in the Stone Age was found on skeletal remains in a grave near Frankfurt, Germany, that bear signs of terrible violence some 7,000 years ago, rare evidence, scientists say, of a massacre among Europe's prehistoric people. AP


BERLIN -- Scientists say they have found rare evidence of a prehistoric massacre in Europe after discovering a 7,000-year-old mass grave with skeletal remains from some of the continent's first farmers bearing terrible wounds.

Archaeologists who painstakingly examined the bones of some 26 men, women and children buried in the Stone Age grave site at Schoeneck-Kilianstaedten, near Frankfurt, say they found blunt force marks to the head, arrow wounds and deliberate efforts to smash at least half of the victims' shins -- either to stop them from running away or as a grim message to survivors.

"It was either torture or mutilation. We can't say for sure whether the victims were still alive," said Christian Meyer, one of the authors of the study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Meyer said the findings from Schoeneck-Kilianstaedten bolster theories put forward after the earlier discovery of two other grave sites in Germany and Austria. At all three sites, the victims and the perpetrators appeared to have been from the Linearbandkeramik -- or LBK -- culture, a farming people who arrived in central Europe about 5,500 B.C. Their name derives from the German phrase for "linear band ceramics," a reference to the style of their pottery.

Intriguingly, the sites have all been dated toward the end of the LBK's 600-year presence, suggesting that members of this culture -- which is thought to have developed in what is now Hungary and spread along the Danube River - may have turned on each other.

"It's about finding patterns. One mass grave was spectacular, but it was just a single grave. But when several such sites are found from the same period, then a pattern emerges," said Meyer.

In their article, the authors suggested that "the new evidence ... in conjunction with previous results, indicates that massacres of entire communities were not isolated occurrences but rather were frequent features of the last phases of the LBK."

Chris Scarre, an archaeologist at the University of Durham, England, who wasn't involved in the study, said its conclusions seemed well supported by the evidence.

"What is particularly interesting is the level of violence. Not just the suppression of a rival community - if that is what it was - but the egregious and systematic breaking of the lower legs," said Scarre. "It suggests the use of terror tactics as part of this inter-community violence."

Meyer, an anthropologist at the University of Mainz, Germany, said nobody can say for sure what prompted the killings so long after the fact. But it's possible to put forward theories, based on what's known about the LBK culture and the conditions they faced. For example, the end of LBK culture coincided with a period of climate change.

"The LBK population had expanded considerably, and this increases the potential for conflict," said Meyer. "Also, the LBK were farmers, they settled. So unlike hunter gatherers, who could move away to avoid conflict, these people couldn't just escape. Add to this the fact that there may have been a period of drought that constrained resources, causing conflicts to erupt."

Meyer said the theory of conflict between different groups within the LBK is supported by the existence of an apparent ancient border near the Schoeneck-Kilianstaedten site. Archaeologists have found that flint was traded on either side of the divide but not necessarily across it - suggesting the two groups did not see each other as kin, he said.

The attackers, however, spared some members of the group, with victims skewed toward young children, adult men and older women.

"It's likely that the young women, who are missing in the grave, were kidnapped by the attackers," said Meyer.




“Archaeologists who painstakingly examined the bones of some 26 men, women and children buried in the Stone Age grave site at Schoeneck-Kilianstaedten, near Frankfurt, say they found blunt force marks to the head, arrow wounds and deliberate efforts to smash at least half of the victims' shins -- either to stop them from running away or as a grim message to survivors. "It was either torture or mutilation. We can't say for sure whether the victims were still alive," said Christian Meyer, one of the authors of the study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. …. . At all three sites, the victims and the perpetrators appeared to have been from the Linearbandkeramik -- or LBK -- culture, a farming people who arrived in central Europe about 5,500 B.C. …. Intriguingly, the sites have all been dated toward the end of the LBK's 600-year presence, suggesting that members of this culture -- which is thought to have developed in what is now Hungary and spread along the Danube River - may have turned on each other. …. "What is particularly interesting is the level of violence. Not just the suppression of a rival community - if that is what it was - but the egregious and systematic breaking of the lower legs," said Scarre. "It suggests the use of terror tactics as part of this inter-community violence." Meyer, an anthropologist at the University of Mainz, Germany, said nobody can say for sure what prompted the killings so long after the fact. But it's possible to put forward theories, based on what's known about the LBK culture and the conditions they faced. For example, the end of LBK culture coincided with a period of climate change. …. Meyer said the theory of conflict between different groups within the LBK is supported by the existence of an apparent ancient border near the Schoeneck-Kilianstaedten site. Archaeologists have found that flint was traded on either side of the divide but not necessarily across it - suggesting the two groups did not see each other as kin, he said.”

A great expansion of the population, climate change, proximity to a borderline? The same things occur today. It’s clear to me that we haven’t learned anything about getting along as a species since then. We still have conflicts that go back hundreds of years. It seems that certain groups of people just innately hate each other. The Palestinians and the Jews are a case in point. I used to believe that world peace was possible, but of course it isn’t.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-1-percent-park-1-million-parking-spots/

How the 1 percent park: $1 million parking spots
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH
August 21, 2015

The surging fortunes of the top 1 percent of America's earners are boosting a small segment of the real estate market: parking spaces.

Cities ranging from New York to London are witnessing record price tags for these slivers of property, thanks to the deep pockets of wealthy residents and increasingly scarce space. Two new luxury buildings in New York are asking $1 million for a single parking slot, according to The Wall Street Journal. In San Francisco, prices for a parking spot in a prime neighborhood now fetch $125,000, up from about $40,000 to $70,000 a few years ago.

Spaces are also going for a premium in large international cities where the wealthy tend to cluster. One sliver of land in London just sold for $314,000, providing a parking space for its new owner in the ritzy South Kensington neighborhood. Private parking space in the neighborhood is so rare that a bidding war broke out over the land, which is a narrow lane that's wide enough to fit a car but can't be developed.

"'Kensington is known for its prime real estate, with most homes having million-pound price tags," Annabel Haan, head of residential development for Colliers, told the Daily Mail. "The sale ... is indicative of the lifestyle and needs of local residents."

The sale price for the parking spot is higher than the average price for a home in the U.K., which stands at about $307,000, according to the publication.

Other cities that are witnessing skyrocketing prices for parking spaces include Sydney ($264,00) and Hong Kong ($547,000).

America's richest households, or those with earnings of at least $1.3 million, saw their annual income rise 10.8 percent in 2014, according to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Incomes for the bottom 99 percent of families, meanwhile, rose just 3.3 percent last year.

Of course, these record-breaking prices are for parking spots in newly constructed luxury buildings, or in neighborhoods that function as the playgrounds of the wealthy. Yet the rank-and-file in many of these cities also pay a small fortune for parking, although some of the methods have changed.

Take the startup Luxe, which has built a business on providing valet parking services to residents of cities including San Francisco, Seattle, and New York. Customers use an app to summon valets to pick up their vehicles, which the valets then drive to a lot. The cars are also washed and fueled.

When the customer needs her car again, she can use the app to request that a valet drive it to the appropriate location. That may sound pretty sweet to New Yorkers who are tired of dealing with alternate-side-of-the-street parking, but Luxe doesn't come cheap. According to Crain's New York, it costs about $400 a month in Manhattan, or $4,800 per year.

Still, that seems like a bargain compared to a $1 million parking spot.




“Cities ranging from New York to London are witnessing record price tags for these slivers of property, thanks to the deep pockets of wealthy residents and increasingly scarce space. Two new luxury buildings in New York are asking $1 million for a single parking slot, according to The Wall Street Journal. …. Private parking space in the neighborhood is so rare that a bidding war broke out over the land, which is a narrow lane that's wide enough to fit a car but can't be developed. "'Kensington is known for its prime real estate, with most homes having million-pound price tags," Annabel Haan, head of residential development for Colliers, told the Daily Mail. "The sale ... is indicative of the lifestyle and needs of local residents." The sale price for the parking spot is higher than the average price for a home in the U.K., which stands at about $307,000, according to the publication. …. America's richest households, or those with earnings of at least $1.3 million, saw their annual income rise 10.8 percent in 2014, according to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Incomes for the bottom 99 percent of families, meanwhile, rose just 3.3 percent last year. …. Yet the rank-and-file in many of these cities also pay a small fortune for parking, although some of the methods have changed. Take the startup Luxe, which has built a business on providing valet parking services to residents of cities including San Francisco, Seattle, and New York. Customers use an app to summon valets to pick up their vehicles, which the valets then drive to a lot. The cars are also washed and fueled. …. According to Crain's New York, it costs about $400 a month in Manhattan, or $4,800 per year.”

I wouldn’t want to pay $400 a month for the Luxe service, but if I lived in a city I also wouldn’t want to have to find a parking place every day, either. A million dollars a year for a reserved space is even more ridiculous. Having a valet fuel the car, wash it, and pick me up might be worth the price if the valet service can be trusted to take good care of the vehicle. They should be required have insurance against scratches and bumps while they have it in their possession. Like apartment rents in large cities, the prices are ridiculous and will rise for the average citizen as well as the wealthy. I want to live in a city with a good bus system. Ours in Jacksonville is pretty good, but when I lived in DC, theirs was much better. When my car breaks down I will simply ride the bus everywhere or pay for a taxi.





http://www.npr.org/2015/08/21/433192324/peer-review-feedback-the-good-the-bad-the-really-ugly

Peer Review Feedback: The Good, The Bad, The Really Ugly
Yuki Noguchi
Correspondent, Business Desk
AUGUST 21, 2015

Photograph -- Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos appears at an event last year in Seattle for the launch of the new Amazon Fire Phone.
THE TWO-WAY


A recent New York Times article about harsh workplace culture at Amazon called attention to how the online retailer handles evaluations: Any co-worker can critique another any time, anonymously. Less exhaustive versions of the peer performance review — or 360 review as they're often known — have been popular for several years.

For Bruce Elliott, who manages compensation and benefits for the Society for Human Resource Management, peer reviews can be a venue for petty personal attacks.

Previously, Elliott was a manager at two large companies that used 360 peer reviews. The reviews were "very, very political, and it was very toxic," he says.

"I was running down these rabbit holes where there was a perceived issue with regard to maybe a team member's performance, so I'd investigate that and find out, 'Oh wait a minute, this person has an agenda.' That's about three hours of my workday I'm never going to get back."

Elliott says allowing anonymous criticism simply ratcheted up the viciousness — and demoralization.

"Let's throw a bomb. I mean, I'm not gonna face any consequence for it because it's anonymous," he says.

Eventually, he says, both companies abandoned the practice.

"It didn't do the business and it certainly didn't do the employee any bit of service that we were dealing, not so much with data or analytics, but we were dealing with perception," Elliott says.

Jeff Bezos Responds To 'New York Times' Report On Amazon's Workplace
Zappos.com tour guide Erika Newman (right) shows off the ball pit in the human resources department of the company's Las Vegas headquarters. Zappos eliminated managers and embraced a system of self-governance known as holacracy.

A view of the central area of Atlassian's office in San Francisco. The software company found that desks were used only 20 percent of the workday — half as much as conference rooms were used.

Karen Hallowell had a very different experience overseeing nearly two decades of peer evaluations. Hallowell is an administrator at the George School in Newtown, Pa.

"What it really did is it made us a very dynamic, agile team," Hallowell says.

Hallowell says there were certain rules. The feedback had to be constructive and professional. Initially, it was anonymous, but they then switched to a system where everyone saw who submitted the critique. She says soliciting feedback forced different personality types to discuss their problems, which was useful, if not always easy.

There were, Hallowell says, tears in the process. Sometimes, she says, it required her to smooth over the aftermath of a review taken personally. In one instance, one employee faced multiple critics.

"So not only did I need to work with the individual who was ganged up on, but we had to create a process by which the healing and growth came on the part of the others," she says.

By far the biggest question — other than whether to do peer review at all — is whether coworkers ought to remain anonymous, at least to the person getting reviewed. And on that score, human resources consultant Marijan Pavisic is unequivocal.

"We strongly urge to do [it] anonymously," he says.

Pavisic says one company defied this recommendation. Instead, it gathered the executives together in a conference room and read their reviews of each other, aloud.

"Joe said about Bob, you know, this and that. And Joanne said about Michael this and that. What happened is actually two of the senior VPs resigned because they took it so personally. The distraction to the business for the next week was horrendous because they kept arguing," Pavisic says.

He does not use 360 reviews at his own firm, Zagreb Global. He doesn't urge corporate clients to, either, because he thinks their business utility is limited, and the potential for damage to morale is high. Yet the number of clients requesting peer reviews this year increased 50 percent over last year.

Pavisic expects eventually the trend will die down. "There's a lot of pushback from employees," he says.

But some believe full disclosure is not only good but here to stay.

Stephanie Jenkins is an account manager for Glassdoor, a site that allows employees to leave anonymous reviews about the companies where they work. She says workers are demanding transparency from outside and from within, including at Glassdoor itself.

He does not use 360 reviews at his own firm, Zagreb Global. He doesn't urge corporate clients to, either, because he thinks their business utility is limited, and the potential for damage to morale is high.
Jenkins says she loves Glassdoor's own internal 360 review.

"We want to hear the good, the bad, the ugly that's going on in the organization. We want to know it with our organization, too, so we know what we can improve on," she says.

If done often enough, she says, the criticisms are seldom a surprise.




“For Bruce Elliott, who manages compensation and benefits for the Society for Human Resource Management, peer reviews can be a venue for petty personal attacks. Previously, Elliott was a manager at two large companies that used 360 peer reviews. The reviews were "very, very political, and it was very toxic," he says. …. Elliott says allowing anonymous criticism simply ratcheted up the viciousness — and demoralization. "Let's throw a bomb. I mean, I'm not gonna face any consequence for it because it's anonymous," he says. …. "It didn't do the business and it certainly didn't do the employee any bit of service that we were dealing, not so much with data or analytics, but we were dealing with perception," Elliott says. …. Zappos eliminated managers and embraced a system of self-governance known as a. …. Karen Hallowell had a very different experience overseeing nearly two decades of peer evaluations. Hallowell is an administrator at the George School in Newtown, Pa. "What it really did is it made us a very dynamic, agile team," Hallowell says. Hallowell says there were certain rules. The feedback had to be constructive and professional. Initially, it was anonymous, but they then switched to a system where everyone saw who submitted the critique. She says soliciting feedback forced different personality types to discuss their problems, which was useful, if not always easy. …. He does not use 360 reviews at his own firm, Zagreb Global. He doesn't urge corporate clients to, either, because he thinks their business utility is limited, and the potential for damage to morale is high. …. He does not use 360 reviews at his own firm, Zagreb Global. He doesn't urge corporate clients to, either, because he thinks their business utility is limited, and the potential for damage to morale is high.”

To me, I would never want to work in a business that was run this way. Barrages of criticism, especially if they are anonymous, are not productive. Frequent company meetings, or working group meetings if the company is a large one, can be very useful on the other hand if every member is allowed to voice his opinions. Issues can be aired frequently and therefore not grow to be so large and hostile as this technique suggests to me. I wouldn’t for a minute want to work in a company that had no supervisors – a holacracy. People just aren’t wise or mature enough for that. The workplace would disintegrate to the Lord of the Flies within a period of months. In addition the company would tend to have no sense of direction, I would think, and probably make very little money. Something like that is what’s wrong in the House of Representatives right now, come to think of it.