Saturday, August 8, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-dropped-redstate-gathering-megyn-kelly-gop-debate-2015/

GOP gathering drops Trump over Megyn Kelly comments
CBS/AP
August 8, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly: Will it hurt the GOP?
22 PHOTOS -- GOP debate 2015


WASHINGTON -- Conservative commentator Erick Erickson said he was withdrawing his invitation for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump to appear at Erickson's RedState Gathering in Atlanta on Saturday over comments Trump made about Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly.

At the first Republican debate of the 2016 campaign for president on Thursday, Kelly asked Trump about his use of words such as "dog," ''fat" and "disgusting" to insult women he believes have slighted him and whether it reflected the "temperament of a man we should elect as president."

Trump largely dismissed Kelly's question at the debate, but on Friday he went directly after her.

Before dawn, he had retweeted a post calling Kelly a "bimbo." The post was later deleted, but on Friday evening Trump called Kelly a "lightweight."

"She's not very tough and not very sharp," Trump said during a phone interview on CNN. "I don't respect her as a journalist."

Referring to Kelly's questions during the debate, Trump said, "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

Erickson cited that remark in withdrawing Trump's invitation for Saturday.

"I just don't want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal," Erickson wrote on the RedState website Friday night. "It just was wrong."

Erickson wrote that he invited Kelly to attend the event in Trump's place.

Trump's campaign responded: "This is just another example of weakness through being politically correct. For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader."

On the morning of the Red State conference, Donald Trump tweeted that "political correctness" was destroying America:

“Donald J. Trump
‎@realDonaldTrump
redstate I miss you all, and thanks for all of your support. Political correctness is killing our country. "weakness."
9:26 AM - 8 Aug 2015

To which Erickson replied with a defense of "common decency":

Erick Erickson
‎@EWErickson –
I hated to disinvite you and hope you might realize that common decency is not political correctness or weakness. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/630007166129303552 …
9:49 AM - 8 Aug 2015

In a series of interviews earlier Friday on network television, the billionaire businessman questioned whether he had actually used the words as Kelly had alleged during the debate.

"You know, some of the statements she made about the women, I don't recognize those words whatsoever," Trump said on ABC's "Good Morning America." ''We're going to take a very serious look at it."

The Republican National Committee (RNC), which reportedly told Donald Trump to tone down his comments regarding immigrants last month, also asked Trump to "immediately clarify" his statements. The RNC added that it would be "highly inappropriate" if he stood by them.

Trump has a long history of lobbing insults at those he feels have treated him unfairly, and advises those who buy his books to do the same.

"For many years I've said that if someone screws you, screw them back," he wrote in "Trump: How to Get Rich." ''When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can."

When doing so, he has repeatedly targeted women and their physical appearance.

"Rosie O'Donnell's disgusting, I mean both inside and out. You take a look at her, she's a slob. She talks like a truck driver," he said in 2006 during an interview with "Entertainment Tonight." ''I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I'd say, 'Rosie, you're fired'" from her television show, "The View."

During the debate, Trump acknowledged making such comments - but only about O'Donnell. When Kelly said Trump's comments had gone beyond O'Donnell and asked about his use of such insults on Twitter, Trump replied that he didn't "have time for total political correctness."

A review of Trump's writings, televised interviews and Twitter feed show he's long used harsh language to describe women - and occasionally men.

In tweets sent last year, Trump called Huffington Post editor Arianna Huffington "a dog who wrongfully comments on me" and said she is "ugly both inside and out!"

In 2012, Trump wrote on Twitter of singer Bette Midler: "But whenever she sees me, she kisses my ass. She's disgusting."

Trump has also said the same of men. "Little MacMiller, I'm now going to teach you a big boy lesson about lawsuits and finance. You ungrateful dog!" he tweeted in 2013 at a rapper who wrote a song titled "Donald Trump."

And to former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank in 2011: "Barney Frank looked disgusting - nipples protruding - in his blue shirt before Congress. Very very disrespectful."

During the debate, Kelly also referenced a boardroom scene from Trump's NBC's realty show, "Celebrity Apprentice," in which Trump was told by one contestant that a female teammate had gotten down on her knees to beg.

"That must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees," Trump said in response.

In the book, Trump declared that, "All the women on 'The Apprentice' flirted with me - consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected."

And he had this to say about women's victories on the show: "It's certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on 'The Apprentice' were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal."

On some occasions Trump appears to have recognized he's gone too far. In April, he retweeted, then deleted, a tweet that read, "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?"




“Trump largely dismissed Kelly's question at the debate, but on Friday he went directly after her. Before dawn, he had retweeted a post calling Kelly a "bimbo." The post was later deleted, but on Friday evening Trump called Kelly a "lightweight." "She's not very tough and not very sharp," Trump said during a phone interview on CNN. "I don't respect her as a journalist." …. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader." On the morning of the Red State conference, Donald Trump tweeted that "political correctness" was destroying America: … “redstate I miss you all, and thanks for all of your support. Political correctness is killing our country. "weakness." …. : "Barney Frank looked disgusting - nipples protruding - in his blue shirt before Congress. Very very disrespectful." …. "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?"

“Referring to Kelly's questions during the debate, Trump said, "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." This is despicable. I doubt if even Rush Limbaugh would say something like this. It’s also idiotic. Who would elect this man for President? His highly inflated ego, however, can’t let him back down from the 2016 race and disappear into the background. He has to be in the spotlight. I feel sorry for all of the women who have married him, even if it was for money.

I have a feeling that within a month or less he is going to pull out of the race. This article gives a number of examples of equally hostile comments about people who dared to dispute his political importance and brilliance. She is dead now, may she rest in peace, but he reminds me of Joan Rivers. I never could stand her, either. Speaking forcefully is one thing, but these wildly crude, stupid and hostile remarks will only turn more and more voting citizens completely off and cause him to lose their vote. Bye, bye, Trump!





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-i-do-support-the-iran-nuclear-agreement/

Bernie Sanders: "I do" support the Iran nuclear agreement
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS
August 7, 2015

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders declared his support for the Iranian nuclear agreement Friday during an interview to air on CBS News' "Face the Nation," telling host John Dickerson that the U.S. should take every necessary step to "make sure that we achieve that goal of Iran not having a nuclear weapon without going to war."

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and is seeking the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, offered a clear "I do" when asked whether he supports the agreement.

"I'm not going to tell you that this is a perfect agreement. And every agreement can be better," Sanders added.

Dickerson noted President Obama's recent assertion that the Republicans who are striving to kill the agreement are "making common cause" with the hard-liners in Iran who oppose the deal.

"I wouldn't frame it that way," Sanders replied. "This is what I saw recently in the Republican debate. It's so easy to be critical of an agreement which is not perfect. But the United States has to negotiate with, you know, other countries. We have to negotiate with Iran. And the alternative of not reaching an agreement, you know what it is? It's war. Do we really want another war, a war with Iran?"

"So I think we go as far as we possibly can in trying to give peace a chance, if you like. Trying to see if this agreement will work," he continued. "And I will support it."

Congress is currently barreling toward a vote in September that will allow lawmakers to vote to approve or disapprove the agreement, which would relieve sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on the country's nuclear energy program.

With the GOP holding majorities in both chambers, it's likely a disapproval measure will be sent to the president's desk. Mr. Obama has vowed to veto it, however, and it's not clear Republicans can persuade enough Democrats to join their push to override that veto.

Sanders' expression of support for the deal brings the Democrats one step closer to securing the 34 votes necessary to prevent a vote to override Mr. Obama's veto. But Democratic support for the agreement is far from unanimous: on Thursday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who's likely to lead the Democratic caucus in the next Congress, declared his opposition to the deal.

Sanders is currently trailing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in early polls of the Democratic primary, though some surveys indicate he's making more headway in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire than he is nationally.

You can watch the full interview with Sanders at 10:30 a.m. EST on Sunday, August 9, 2015 on "Face the Nation."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/issues-with-iran-deal/

Twelve things in the Iran deal that lawmakers can’t agree on
PowerPost
By Karoun Demirjian
July 23, 2015

There is likely not a single lawmaker on Capitol Hill who would say the Iran deal is perfect. But the range of issues they have with the Iran deal is broad — and growing — and we’re only a few days in to the 60-day review. Lawmakers have had a few chances in that time to air their frustrations and questions to the Cabinet secretaries who negotiated the agreement. On Thursday, that conversation went public for the first time, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee grilled Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew about the particulars of the deal. Here are the issues on which the two sides can’t seem to agree.

FOR THE 12 POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT ON THE IRAN DEAL, READ THIS WHOLE ARTICLE. IT’S LONG, BUT SUCCINCT.



"This is what I saw recently in the Republican debate. It's so easy to be critical of an agreement which is not perfect. But the United States has to negotiate with, you know, other countries. We have to negotiate with Iran. And the alternative of not reaching an agreement, you know what it is? It's war. Do we really want another war, a war with Iran?" "So I think we go as far as we possibly can in trying to give peace a chance, if you like. Trying to see if this agreement will work," he continued. "And I will support it." …. Sanders' expression of support for the deal brings the Democrats one step closer to securing the 34 votes necessary to prevent a vote to override Mr. Obama's veto. But Democratic support for the agreement is far from unanimous: on Thursday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who's likely to lead the Democratic caucus in the next Congress, declared his opposition to the deal.”

I don’t want to go into everything that the Washington Post article above said, but it mainly revolves around fears that control of Iran may be impossible once the sanctions are lifted. I saw no mention of Schumer, and his reasons for opposing the deal. Personally I agree with Sanders and Obama that we need a deal while an amenable set of leaders are in power in Iran, and that not to do so could mean a new nuclear arms race or war. Surely we’ve had enough of that.





http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/08/04/416827667/so-you-flunked-a-racism-test-now-what

So You Flunked A Racism Test. Now What?
Maanvi Singh
AUGUST 04, 2015

You're probably at least a little bit racist and sexist and homophobic. Most of us are.

Before you get all indignant, try taking one of the popular implicit-association tests. Created by social psychologists at Harvard, the University of Washington, and the University of Virginia, they measure people's unconscious prejudice by testing how easy — or difficult — it is for the test-takers to associate words like "good" and "bad" with images of black people versus white people, or "scientist" and "lab" with men versus women.

These tests find that — regardless of how many Pride parades they attend or how many "This is what a feminist looks like" T-shirts they own — most people trust men over women, white people over minorities, and straight people over queer people. These trends can hold true regardless of the gender, race or sexuality of the test-taker. I'm from India, and the test found that I'm biased against Asian-Americans.

There is research indicating that these types of implicit prejudices may help explain why cops are more likely to shoot unarmed black men than to shoot unarmed white men, and why employers are more likely to hire white candidates than equally qualified black candidates.

So if you, like nearly everybody else, got a worrisome score on the implicit-association test, you might be wondering: Now what? A few scientists are trying to figure out whether our most deeply rooted prejudices can be rewired, and they're testing out some wild ideas along the way.

An Antidote For Prejudice?

Of course, there is no pill you can take to rid yourself of racism — though scientists have looked for one. In one small study, researchers at Oxford University found that taking propranolol, a drug that's normally used to reduce blood pressure, may also lower implicit racist attitudes. But even the brains behind that study say their results might have been coincidental.

Most major efforts to combat implicit prejudice, however, involve in-person or online anti-bias training. A couple of years ago, researchers at the University of Virginia held a sort of race: They challenged scientists to come up with rapid-fire ways to disable stereotypes. Most were unsuccessful — and even when scientists managed to reduce bias, the effects were modest and didn't last long.

More recently, researchers at Northwestern University wanted to see if they could remedy racism and sexism during sleep. Yes, it sounds like a scammy fad — shed pounds while you snore! — but the results, which were published in the June issue of Science, show that it's possible, but even harder than we thought.

First, the researchers had 40 volunteers take implicit-bias tests like the ones described above to measure how prejudiced the participants were from the start.

Then, they had everyone go through an anti-bias training program. The volunteers were exposed to images that countered deeply held stereotypes — they saw photos of female faces next to words associated with math or science, like "experiment" or "lab," and black faces paired with pleasant words like "sunshine," "smile" and "honor."

Throughout this training, the researchers played a series of sound cues in the background. A specific tone played each time a participant saw an image of a woman paired with a science-related word, and another tone played whenever they saw a picture of a black man alongside positive words.

Later, the volunteers took a 90-minute nap. Once everyone was fast asleep, the researchers softly played the same sound cues again to reinforce the day's training. "When they woke up, they had no idea what had happened while they were sleeping," explains Ken Paller, a neuroscientist and psychologist at Northwestern and one of the study's authors.

"We still don't know if changing people's results on the Implicit Bias Test translates to them acting differently toward minorities in the real world."
Ken Paller, Northwestern University
And, voila! When participants took the same implicit-bias tests after the nap, they were up to 50 percent less biased.

It may sound straight out of sci-fi, but "it's not all that surprising, actually, given what we know about how the brain works," says Paller. While you're sleeping, he explains, your brain goes over what you learned during the day and mashes it up with stuff you already know.

"The brain is sort of digesting that information while you sleep," he explains.

Paller and his colleagues were trying to hack that cognitive digestion process, forcing participants' brains to review and internalize the counterstereotypical associations that they were exposed to during the training.

Should the paranoid among us worry that forced anti-racism re-education camps are coming? Hardly. Even if this technique works, it can't be used on the unabashedly bigoted — whether asleep or awake, your brain will retain only things you want to learn. "These procedures would only work on cooperative people," Paller says. That is, our brains are good at blocking out information we don't like.

For the participants of Paller's study, the reductions in implicit bias lasted for up to a week. That may not sound like a lot, but it's a big improvement over previous anti-bias training programs, which stuck for just hours or a few days, tops.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Perhaps more important than the lasting effects of this particular approach, Paller's findings are proof that our implicit attitudes are malleable — and maybe, just maybe, it is possible for people to let go of prejudice for good, if they want to. But it won't be easy.

"Adults have had years and years of exposure to stereotypes," Paller says. And biases take hold early — studies have found that kids as young as 4 and 5 show racial and gender bias. "It can take a lot of effort to reverse that."

Paller stresses that this is very preliminary research. To confirm the results, a lot more people have to be tested. "Plus, we still don't know if changing people's results on the implicit-bias test translates to them acting differently toward minorities in the real world," he notes.

The bottom line: There's no silver bullet, says Anthony Greenwald, a social psychologist at the University of Washington who helped develop the implicit-association test. At least not yet. "But I'm open-minded," says Greenwald, who wasn't involved in Paller's study. "It will be interesting to see if these results can be reproduced."

Greenwald, who perhaps understands more about bias than just about anyone, has taken the implicit-association test himself. His results haven't budged over the years. He's still biased along racial and gender lines, he says, "even though I really don't like having these biases."

Until we better understand how to actually reduce innate bias, the best we can do is try to ensure our prejudices affect our decisions as little as possible, Greenwald says. For instance, he says, "blind auditions for musicians can work really well." And taking the names off resumes can help ensure that hiring managers don't choose candidates based on gender or race.

"Until our culture changes to the point where we don't have these negative ideas about certain groups," Greenwald says, "it may be that our implicit biases are probably here to stay."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test

Implicit-association test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The implicit-association test (IAT) is a measure within social psychology designed to detect the strength of a person's automatic association between mental representations of objects (concepts) in memory. The IAT was introduced in the scientific literature in 1998 by Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGhee, Joyce Sherry, and Jordan Schwartz.[1] The IAT is now widely used in social psychology research and is used to some extent in clinical, cognitive, and developmental psychology research. Although some controversy still exists regarding the IAT and what it measures, much research into its validity and psychometric properties has been conducted since its introduction into the literature.”

Implicit cognition and measurement[edit]

“In 1995, social psychology researchers Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji asserted that the idea of implicit and explicit memory can apply to social constructs as well.[2] If memories that are not accessible to awareness can influence our actions, associations can also influence our attitudes and behavior. Thus, measures that tap into individual differences in associations of concepts should be developed. This would allow researchers to understand attitudes that cannot be measured through explicit self-report methods due to lack of awareness or social-desirability bias.[3] The first IAT article was published three years later in 1998.[4]”

Application and use [edit]

“A computer-based measure, the IAT requires that users rapidly categorize two target concepts with an attribute (e.g. the concepts "male" and "female" with the attribute "logical"), such that easier pairings (faster responses) are interpreted as more strongly associated in memory than more difficult pairings (slower responses).[1]”

“The IAT is thought to measure implicit attitudes: "introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling, thought, or action toward social objects."[5] In research, the IAT has been used to develop theories to understand implicit cognition (i.e. cognitive processes of which a person has no conscious awareness). These processes may include memory, perception, attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Because the IAT requires that users make a series of rapid judgments, researchers believe that IAT scores may also reflect attitudes which people are unwilling to reveal publicly.[1] The IAT may allow researchers to get around the difficult problem of social-desirability bias and for that reason it has been used extensively to assess people's attitudes towards commonly stigmatized groups.[6]”

“A typical IAT procedure involves a series of seven tasks.[7] In the first task, an individual is asked to categorize stimuli into two categories. For example, a person might be presented with a computer screen on which the word "Black" appears in the top left-hand corner and the word "White" appears in the top right-hand corner. In the middle of the screen a word, such as a first name, that is typically associated with either the categories of "Black" or "White." For each word that appears in the middle of the screen, the person is asked to sort the word into the appropriate category by pressing the appropriate left-hand or right-hand key. On the second task, the person would complete a similar sorting procedure with an attribute of some kind. For example, the word "Pleasant" might now appear in the top left-hand corner of the screen and the word "Unpleasant" in the top right-hand corner. …. The fifth task is a repeat of the first task with the exception that the position of the two target words would be reversed. For example, "Black" would now appear in the top right-hand corner of the screen and "White" in the top left-hand corner. The sixth task would be a repeat of the third, except that the objects and subjects of study would be in opposite pairings from previous trials. …. Variations of the IAT include the Go/No-go Association Test (GNAT),[8] the Brief-IAT [9] and the Single-Category IAT.[10] An idiographic approach using the IAT and the SC-IAT for measuring implicit anxiety showed that personalized stimulus selection did not affect the outcome, reliabilities and correlations to outside criteria.[11]”

“Valence IATs measure associations between concepts and positive or negative valence. They are generally interpreted as a preference for one category over another. …. Stereotype IATs measure associations between concepts that often reflect the strength to which a person holds a particular societal stereotype. For example, the Gender-Science IAT reveals that most people associate women more strongly with liberal arts and men more strongly with science.[12] Similarly, the Gender-Career IAT indicates that most people associate women more strongly with family and men more strongly with careers. …. The self-esteem IAT measures implicit self-esteem by pairing "self" and "other" words with words of positive and negative valence.[13] Those who find it easier to pair "self" with positive words than negative words are purported to have higher implicit self-esteem. Generally, measures of implicit self-esteem, including the IAT, are not strongly related to one another and are not strongly related to explicit measures of self-esteem.[14] ….”




“Before you get all indignant, try taking one of the popular implicit-association tests. Created by social psychologists at Harvard, the University of Washington, and the University of Virginia, they measure people's unconscious prejudice by testing how easy — or difficult — it is for the test-takers to associate words like "good" and "bad" with images of black people versus white people, or "scientist" and "lab" with men versus women. …. So if you, like nearly everybody else, got a worrisome score on the implicit-association test, you might be wondering: Now what? A few scientists are trying to figure out whether our most deeply rooted prejudices can be rewired, and they're testing out some wild ideas along the way. An Antidote For Prejudice? …. Most major efforts to combat implicit prejudice, however, involve in-person or online anti-bias training. …. More recently, researchers at Northwestern University wanted to see if they could remedy racism and sexism during sleep. Yes, it sounds like a scammy fad — shed pounds while you snore! — but the results, which were published in the June issue of Science, show that it's possible, but even harder than we thought. First, the researchers had 40 volunteers take implicit-bias tests like the ones described above to measure how prejudiced the participants were from the start. Then, they had everyone go through an anti-bias training program. The volunteers were exposed to images that countered deeply held stereotypes …. Throughout this training, the researchers played a series of sound cues in the background. A specific tone played each time a participant saw an image of a woman paired with a science-related word, and another tone played whenever they saw a picture of a black man alongside positive words. …. Later, the volunteers took a 90-minute nap. Once everyone was fast asleep, the researchers softly played the same sound cues again to reinforce the day's training. …. And, voila! When participants took the same implicit-bias tests after the nap, they were up to 50 percent less biased. …. Should the paranoid among us worry that forced anti-racism re-education camps are coming? Hardly. Even if this technique works, it can't be used on the unabashedly bigoted — whether asleep or awake, your brain will retain only things you want to learn. …. Perhaps more important than the lasting effects of this particular approach, Paller's findings are proof that our implicit attitudes are malleable — and maybe, just maybe, it is possible for people to let go of prejudice for good, if they want to. But it won't be easy. "Adults have had years and years of exposure to stereotypes," Paller says. And biases take hold early — studies have found that kids as young as 4 and 5 show racial and gender bias. "It can take a lot of effort to reverse that."

“Until we better understand how to actually reduce innate bias, the best we can do is try to ensure our prejudices affect our decisions as little as possible, Greenwald says. For instance, he says, "blind auditions for musicians can work really well." And taking the names off resumes can help ensure that hiring managers don't choose candidates based on gender or race.”

This is a very interesting article, and sheds light on what we might be able to do about racism in policing and the courts, poverty programs, housing, medicine and other very sensitive areas dealing with the treatment of our fellow man. Early exposure is hard to counter, but to some degree seems to be possible. Personally, I believe an individual can retrain his or her attitudes by purposely speaking to people of other races in a friendly way and in some depth. Don’t just say “hello,” but make some light conversation if it is convenient. People sitting together on a train or at a bus stop can do it rather than avoiding their eyes and moving as far away from them as possible.

It is better with strangers, of course, to keep some distance if they seem to be “dangerous” people, since our instincts are important guides in such things. If someone keeps glancing at me sideways while maintaining a grim facial expression I will NOT converse with him, and will read my book instead, or even change seats. If it’s a man and he is overly friendly, I will persistently read my book then, also. However, I have had really great conversations on trains with folks who are different from me, and then we walked away from each other to our own destinations. Each time I do that I gain more confidence in my ability to make a good judgment of people I meet. After all, I’m not going to marry them!

That method of desensitizing myself from my fears of a stranger is something I have practiced most of my life, and it is not only interesting to me, I think that is why I have less unease in the presence of racial and other cultural differences than many do. However when I am walking down the street at 10:00 PM in a city area where I don’t see anyone else who might help me, I am blank-faced and overtly confident in my appearance, looking at everyone I pass, and looking behind bushes or other hiding places for anyone who may be waiting there for human prey. It’s best to scan for attackers from a distance away so there will be time to react protectively. In that situation I am definitely more nervous with men than women and with blacks/Hispanics than whites. Primarily, however, I look at the face and if I see a relaxed and friendly smile I will briefly say “hello.” If I see hostility I just pass him by quietly or look at him until he steps aside. I have bluffed two people in that way and it tends to work. A guy knows he can overwhelm me, but if I meet his eye persistently he is less likely to feel sure of my being an easy mark. I have only met such a person a few times in all my years in DC, and each time I used whatever method seemed best at the time. Once I stopped, picked up a chunk of broken cement and faced the man until he turned his back on me. I do not tend to run because I can’t run fast. I will bluff if possible and prepare to actually fight if I have to. This is more time-consuming than using my prejudice system first, but I get more human feedback that way which is something I really enjoy, and am ready to protect myself if I have to.

In my opinion, people love intellectual short cuts (it’s so much easier than figuring things out for themselves) and they are afraid to one degree or another of “bucking the crowd” by siding with an unpopular outsider. That means they will too often stand by and watch or even cheer the villain on when a bully or a gang harass a child with intellectual disabilities, or simply the wrong color of skin. If we value being “popular” more than being kind or courageous, we will most likely tell sexist and racist jokes with the gang at the bar. Just look at Donald Trump right now making grotesque comments that have pleased the most chauvinistic and stupid people in our society, boosting his ratings on the recent presidential polls. His last crack has lost him his cachet with the RNC, however, so I think he will start thinking before he speaks. Living life without trying to work on our biases comes naturally, and we have to make an effort to change that pattern. A good many individuals do want to do that, though, and together we can form a better society. Onward and upward, America!




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toxic-sludge-turns-river-in-colorado-orange/

Toxic sludge turns river in Colorado orange
By MIREYA VILLARREAL CBS NEWS
August 7, 2015

Photograph -- Must see! animas-river.jpg
A view of the contaminated Animas River near Durango, Colorado. HAYDEN FERGUSON


DURANGO, Colo. -- You can forgive folks in southern Colorado who might have a jaundiced view of government projects after what happened this week.

Crews working for the Environmental Protection Agency were trying to clean up an old mine. But they accidentally sent a million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River.

The images from the ground and from the sky of an orange river have Durango residents like Joe Genualdi worried.

"It's already hard enough to catch fish in the Animas, and this stuff, it's definitely not good for them," Genualdi said. "It's going to kill a lot of fish off."

The EPA takes full responsibility for the contamination, admitting it underestimated the magnitude of the problem.

Testing Friday afternoon confirmed that heavy metals like lead, cadmium and arsenic are now flowing through the river, and sediment is settling at the bottom.

Professor Asish Basu specializes in geochemistry at the University of Texas in Arlington. He says the impact of this kind of spill goes way beyond just the look of the river.

"All these metals, in excessive amounts, are dangerous to human life," Basu said.

The Animas River runs 126 miles and is one of the sources of drinking water for towns surrounding it.

Basu says there are several ways to try and fix the problem, but the easiest might be letting the fast-flowing river run its course.

"Dilution is the solution in a case like this," Basu said.

Since the leak has not yet been plugged, the EPA is building retention ponds around the mine, trying to capture additional wastewater.




“Crews working for the Environmental Protection Agency were trying to clean up an old mine. But they accidentally sent a million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River. The images from the ground and from the sky of an orange river have Durango residents like Joe Genualdi worried. "It's already hard enough to catch fish in the Animas, and this stuff, it's definitely not good for them," Genualdi said. "It's going to kill a lot of fish off." The EPA takes full responsibility for the contamination, admitting it underestimated the magnitude of the problem. Testing Friday afternoon confirmed that heavy metals like lead, cadmium and arsenic are now flowing through the river, and sediment is settling at the bottom. .… The Animas River runs 126 miles and is one of the sources of drinking water for towns surrounding it. Basu says there are several ways to try and fix the problem, but the easiest might be letting the fast-flowing river run its course. "Dilution is the solution in a case like this," Basu said. Since the leak has not yet been plugged, the EPA is building retention ponds around the mine, trying to capture additional wastewater.”

Here we are with another sad misadventure with Mother Nature bearing the brunt. It wasn’t even the infamous Koch Brothers who did it, either, but a “miscalculation” by the EPA. I hope no people are poisoned by this event, and that fish and wildlife will also escape death. If dilution is the key, we can only wait for that to occur.





http://www.npr.org/2015/08/08/430059658/in-louisiana-rebuilding-mother-natures-storm-protection-a-living-coast

In Louisiana, Rebuilding Mother Nature's Storm Protection: A 'Living Coast'
Jesse Hardman
August 8, 2015

Photograph -- In the past decade, freshwater and sediment diverted from the nearby Mississippi River have turned what once was an open bay into a thriving wetlands area. Local environmental groups have planted thousands of cypress trees, attempting to create a marsh that will help absorb storms that pass through.
Weenta Girmay for WWNO

In a lush green bayou a little southeast of New Orleans, John Lopez and Howard Callahan are cruising the waterways in an airboat under the hot Louisiana sun on a recent day.

It's an area known as Breton Basin, and Callahan is a local land manager who often helps researchers such as Lopez explore environmental changes in coastal wetlands. The pair head to a concrete and steel structure that separates the bayou from the nearby Mississippi River.

This is the Caernarvon river diversion. Built in 1991, it works like a faucet: When it's open, freshwater and sediment from the Mississippi River — usually hemmed in by the levee system — flow back into what was a dying swamp. Diversions such as this one are meant to free the river to do its original job as it nears the Gulf of Mexico: spread out sediment, create land and provide freshwater to local habitats.

In the past decade, thick, green vegetation has grown up around the diversion, and Lopez says that's a good thing.

"This is what Louisiana's supposed to be," he says. "Not a dying coast, but a living coast."

Now, 10 years after Hurricane Katrina devastated much of the Gulf Coast region, expanded efforts are underway to revitalize this "living coast," Louisiana's original storm protection system. State officials have earmarked billions of dollars to rebuild the marshes and wetlands that create a natural buffer against storms and floods.

Over the past century, man-made canals and natural storm surge pushed too much saltwater into the bayou, killing the swamp. Cypress trees and swamp grasses are what slow hurricanes down and absorb storm surge.

We know the river built the wetlands. ... And we know that the river can rebuild wetlands, and they can rebuild the system on a scale that we can't mechanically do with just dredging.

New Orleans is technically 80 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, but with a football field of coastal wetlands disappearing every half-hour, that distance is deceptive, says Kyle Graham, head of Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.

"Our levee systems aren't designed to have the Gulf of Mexico lapping up against the outside. They're designed to have that amount of marsh, or a marsh-protected fringe in between them and the Gulf of Mexico," he says.

Graham oversees an ambitious plan — $50 billion over 50 years — to rebuild the coast. Compare that to the $14 billion spent since Hurricane Katrina to rebuild the man-made levee system that lines the Mississippi River and protects the city of New Orleans and other areas along the river.

The coastal rebuilding plan prescribes bigger and deeper diversions than Caernarvon, according to the Environmental Defense Fund's Natalie Peyronnin, who helped draft the idea. The alternative — digging up sediment, transporting it and manufacturing land — is too expensive, she says.

"We know the river built the wetlands; we do know that. And we know that the river can rebuild wetlands, and they can rebuild the system on a scale that we can't mechanically do with just dredging," Peyronnin says.

Local land manager Howard Callahan navigates his airboat, which helps local environmental groups get deep into the Breton Basin area to investigate the impact of the Caernarvon river diversion.

Not everybody wants diversions. George Ricks is one of several sport fishermen worried about the effects of river diversions. More freshwater and less saltwater will upset the balance of local habitats that nurture fish, shrimp, oysters and more.

"When you look at the economic impact of losing our fisheries, and our seafood industries, and our restaurant businesses, because of a lack of seafood, it's not that economically feasible to have diversions instead of dredging," Ricks says.

But diversion advocates say the Gulf of Mexico will eventually push back and restore the brackish water balance. And with Louisiana's coast rapidly disappearing, there are bigger issues at hand, says Peyronnin of the Environmental Defense Fund.

"If we don't use the river to build land, and maintain this wonderful coast, then people are going to have to move away," she says.

Louisiana officials hope to begin construction of multiple river diversions in the next few years. They believe this approach will give Louisiana not just its coast back, but its best chance at surviving the next big hurricane.




“The pair head to a concrete and steel structure that separates the bayou from the nearby Mississippi River. This is the Caernarvon river diversion. Built in 1991, it works like a faucet: When it's open, freshwater and sediment from the Mississippi River — usually hemmed in by the levee system — flow back into what was a dying swamp. Diversions such as this one are meant to free the river to do its original job as it nears the Gulf of Mexico: spread out sediment, create land and provide freshwater to local habitats. …. Not everybody wants diversions. George Ricks is one of several sport fishermen worried about the effects of river diversions. More freshwater and less saltwater will upset the balance of local habitats that nurture fish, shrimp, oysters and more. "When you look at the economic impact of losing our fisheries, and our seafood industries, and our restaurant businesses, because of a lack of seafood, it's not that economically feasible to have diversions instead of dredging," Ricks says. But diversion advocates say the Gulf of Mexico will eventually push back and restore the brackish water balance. And with Louisiana's coast rapidly disappearing, there are bigger issues at hand, says Peyronnin of the Environmental Defense Fund. …. They believe this approach will give Louisiana not just its coast back, but its best chance at surviving the next big hurricane.”

Louisiana was truly chastened by the rapidly moving and overwhelming Hurricane Katrina. I remember the way it looked on my TV screen the next morning. My stomach seemed to sink with dismay. I am truly grateful that I went to New Orleans for the Mardi Gras about 30 years ago and I saw the beauty of the city and the bayou before it was devastated. I hope these diversions will be successful rather than harming the bayou further as one fisherman in the story above said it may. “Eventually” the Gulf of Mexico will move back up to mix with the fresh water and make it brackish again, and the fishermen will have something to bring home again. Time is the key, here. Nature works slowly, but life has sprung back up from near total extinctions several times on earth. Time, in this case means thousands and thousands of years. We may never live to see the results.






http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/07/430359408/virginia-recalling-specialty-license-plates-with-confederate-flag

Virginia Recalling Specialty License Plates With Confederate Flag
Brakkton Booker
August 7, 2015

Photograph -- A sample Confederate battle flag license plate in Virginia.
Wayne Scarberry/Getty Images

Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles will begin recalling specialty license plates depicting the Confederate battle flag following a federal judge's decision last week to dissolve an injunction that barred officials from blocking such plates.

There are approximately 1,700 Confederate license plates issued throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. But as the Virginian-Pilot reports, how quickly the tags will disappear from Virginia roadways is anyone's guess.

The newspaper says:

"The affected motorists will be sent new Sons of Confederate Veterans tags along with a letter telling them they have 30 days before the old plate is invalid, said Department of Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Brandy Brubaker.

"However, the replacement tag doesn't exist yet. The DMV will work with the heritage group to come up with a new flagless plate design, Brubaker said. Then the plate has to be manufactured and sent to holders of the specialty plate."

The Associated Press has more on the judge's ruling that led to the DMV's move:

"U.S. District Judge Jackson L. Kiser had issued an injunction in 2001 that allowed the image of the Confederate flag on specialty plates honoring the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. Kiser said in a Thursday order that his decision is 'no longer good law' because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Texas case that said specialty license plates represent the state's speech, and not the driver's speech."
As my colleague Scott Neuman reported last month, the judge's order was expected.

"Close on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted Texas the right to refuse to issue Confederate-themed license plates, a federal judge has effectively vacated a state injunction in Virginia that kept officials there from similarly blocking such plates."

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement Thursday, "Because the injunction has been dissolved, DMV will begin the administrative process of recalling and replacing existing license plates with ones that comply with Virginia Law."

Herring had filed paperwork in June that would allow Virginia to remove the flag from Sons of Confederate Veterans plates following the Supreme Court's ruling in Walker v. Texas.




“Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles will begin recalling specialty license plates depicting the Confederate battle flag following a federal judge's decision last week to dissolve an injunction that barred officials from blocking such plates. There are approximately 1,700 Confederate license plates issued throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. But as the Virginian-Pilot reports, how quickly the tags will disappear from Virginia roadways is anyone's guess. …. "The affected motorists will be sent new Sons of Confederate Veterans tags along with a letter telling them they have 30 days before the old plate is invalid, said Department of Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Brandy Brubaker. …. The Associated Press has more on the judge's ruling that led to the DMV's move: "U.S. District Judge Jackson L. Kiser had issued an injunction in 2001 that allowed the image of the Confederate flag on specialty plates honoring the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. Kiser said in a Thursday order that his decision is 'no longer good law' because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Texas case that said specialty license plates represent the state's speech, and not the driver's speech." As my colleague Scott Neuman reported last month, the judge's order was expected. "Close on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted Texas the right to refuse to issue Confederate-themed license plates, a federal judge has effectively vacated a state injunction in Virginia that kept officials there from similarly blocking such plates." …. Herring had filed paperwork in June that would allow Virginia to remove the flag from Sons of Confederate Veterans plates following the Supreme Court's ruling in Walker v. Texas.”

The Supreme Court comes to the rescue again. Both Texas and Virginia legislatures had written laws to remove the Dixie flag, but injunctions were filed to prevent it. Thank goodness this one (relatively small) victory is taking place. I want the US governments and private citizens to “walk the walk,” not just “talk the talk.” I will be prouder of my country if this takes place nationwide and forever.