Thursday, August 13, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/12/l-fighting-drought-millions-black-plastic-balls/31526267/

L.A. fighting drought with millions of black plastic balls
Arden Dier, Newser staff
August 13, 2015

Photograph -- 55,000 black shade balls are released onto the surface of the Los Angeles Reservoir. Shade ball deliveries like this one occur weekly and by the time all the balls are in place, there will be about 77 million, forming a floating cover. LasVirgenesMWD

(NEWSER) – The Los Angeles Reservoir has now turned black, but not from any kind of pollution. Over several months, city officials have been unleashing 96 million black plastic balls into the city's 175-acre reservoir in an effort to fight the effects of California's drought. The final 20,000 were dropped in on Monday. How is turning the reservoir into what Gizmodo calls a "goth-looking PlayPlace" going to help? Well, the so-called shade balls actually help keep water clear of dust and critters; hinder algae growth; prevent chemical reactions between sunlight and chlorine; and reduce evaporation as they float on the water's surface. At a cost of $34.5 million, or 36 cents each, the city says they're a "cost-effective way to reduce evaporation each year by nearly 300 million gallons, enough to provide drinking water for 8,100 people for a full year."

The 4-inch balls — treated with a chemical to block UV light and designed to last up to 25 years, reports Bloomberg — are also expected to save $250 million compared with another method of complying with clean-water laws, the Los Angeles Times reports. As the EPA recommends water reservoirs be covered, the alternative would be to build a dam dividing the reservoir and install floating covers for $300 million, reports NPR. The Department of Water and Power says it's "the first utility company to use this technology for water quality protection." The shade balls have also been used at three other nearby reservoirs, including one since 2008. "In the midst of California's historic drought, it takes bold ingenuity to maximize my goals for water conservation," L.A. mayor Eric Garcetti says, per the Huffington Post. This "is emblematic of the kind of creative thinking we need to meet those challenges." (Meet the drought's latest casualty.)




“The Los Angeles Reservoir has now turned black, but not from any kind of pollution. Over several months, city officials have been unleashing 96 million black plastic balls into the city's 175-acre reservoir in an effort to fight the effects of California's drought. The final 20,000 were dropped in on Monday. How is turning the reservoir into what Gizmodo calls a "goth-looking PlayPlace" going to help? Well, the so-called shade balls actually help keep water clear of dust and critters; hinder algae growth; prevent chemical reactions between sunlight and chlorine; and reduce evaporation as they float on the water's surface. …. The 4-inch balls — treated with a chemical to block UV light and designed to last up to 25 years, reports Bloomberg — are also expected to save $250 million compared with another method of complying with clean-water laws, the Los Angeles Times reports. As the EPA recommends water reservoirs be covered, the alternative would be to build a dam dividing the reservoir and install floating covers for $300 million, reports NPR.”

I do hope that the chemical that the balls contain which is supposed to block UV light will not have some unforeseen result which is damaging, as has happened with so many medicines. The photograph of all the black balls covering the surface of the water isn’t very attractive, but if it helps about evaporation it’s okay. It’s really very imaginative and economical. Water is probably going to be our worst crisis in future years if these droughts are due to global warming.





https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-urges-congress-to-restore-voting-rights-act-126512340776.html

Obama urges Congress to restore Voting Rights Act
Dylan Stableford, SENIOR EDITOR
August 12, 2015

Photograph -- President Obama marks the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act last week in Washington. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)

President Obama is continuing to urge Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act, the historic 1965 law removing legal barriers that prevented African-Americans from exercising their right to vote.

“Our state leaders and legislatures must make it easier — not harder — for more Americans to have their voices heard,” Obama wrote in a letter to the New York Times Magazine published online Wednesday. The president said he was “inspired” by Jim Rutenberg’s Aug. 2 cover story, “A Dream Undone: Inside the 50-year campaign to roll back the Voting Rights Act.”

“The Voting Rights Act put an end to literacy tests and other forms of discrimination, helping to close the gap between our promise that all of us are created equal and our long history of denying some of us the right to vote,” Obama wrote. “The impact was immediate, and profound — the percentage of African-Americans registered to vote skyrocketed in the years after the Voting Rights Act was passed. But as Rutenberg chronicles, from the moment the ink was dry on the Voting Rights Act, there has been a concentrated effort to undermine this historic law and turn back the clock on its progress.”

“These efforts are not a sign that we have moved past the shameful history that led to the Voting Rights Act,” the president continued. “Too often, they are rooted in that history. They remind us that progress does not come easy, but that it must be vigorously defended and built upon for ourselves and future generations.”

In his story, Rutenberg profiled Rosanell Eaton, a plaintiff in a North Carolina case arguing to repeal voting restrictions that were enacted in 2013. Obama called the 94-year-old an “unsung American hero.”

“She has not given up,” he wrote. “She’s still marching. She’s still fighting to make real the promise of America. She still believes that We the People have the awesome power to make our union more perfect. And if we join her, we, too, can reaffirm the fundamental truth of the words Rosanell recited.”

When Obama was elected in 2008, Rutenberg notes, black voter turnout was nearly equal to white voter turnout for the first time.

“I am where I am today only because men and women like Rosanell Eaton refused to accept anything less than a full measure of equality,” the president wrote.

President Obama is continuing to urge Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act, the historic 1965 law removing legal barriers that prevented African-Americans from exercising their right to vote.

“Our state leaders and legislatures must make it easier — not harder — for more Americans to have their voices heard,” Obama wrote in a letter to the New York Times Magazine published online Wednesday. The president said he was “inspired” by Jim Rutenberg’s Aug. 2 cover story, “A Dream Undone: Inside the 50-year campaign to roll back the Voting Rights Act.”

“The Voting Rights Act put an end to literacy tests and other forms of discrimination, helping to close the gap between our promise that all of us are created equal and our long history of denying some of us the right to vote,” Obama wrote. “The impact was immediate, and profound — the percentage of African-Americans registered to vote skyrocketed in the years after the Voting Rights Act was passed. But as Rutenberg chronicles, from the moment the ink was dry on the Voting Rights Act, there has been a concentrated effort to undermine this historic law and turn back the clock on its progress.”

In his story, Rutenberg profiled Rosanell Eaton, a plaintiff in a North Carolina case arguing to repeal voting restrictions that were enacted in 2013. Obama called the 94-year-old an “unsung American hero.”

“She has not given up,” he wrote. “She’s still marching. She’s still fighting to make real the promise of America. She still believes that We the People have the awesome power to make our union more perfect. And if we join her, we, too, can reaffirm the fundamental truth of the words Rosanell recited.”

When Obama was elected in 2008, Rutenberg notes, black voter turnout was nearly equal to white voter turnout for the first time.

“I am where I am today only because men and women like Rosanell Eaton refused to accept anything less than a full measure of equality,” the president wrote.

Half a century after Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, President Obama calls on Congress to pass stronger legislation protecting voting rights for Americans

Last week, Obama marked the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act at the White House, where he criticized states that have instituted laws that effectively discourage some people from voting.

“Sadly, too many states are making it harder for folks to vote — instituting photo ID laws that on the surface sound good,” Obama said. “But in practice, it turns out that for seniors and for poorer folks, that’s not always easy to do.”

Such laws, the president said, don’t “address a real problem because there are almost no instances of people going to vote in somebody else’s name.”

“Folks might think about shoplifting,” Obama said, “but I am certain, because we’ve actually looked at the data on this, that almost nobody wakes up saying, I’m going to go vote in somebody else’s name. Doesn’t happen. So the only reason to pass this law, despite the reasonableness of how it sounds, is to make it harder for folks to vote.”

But the president also called out those who “disenfranchise themselves”:

The fact of the matter is that far more people disenfranchise themselves than any law does by not participating, by not getting involved. So, yes, we have to be vigilant in pushing back against laws that seek to disenfranchise people. Yes, we should be fighting back against laws, for example, that say ex-felons, no matter how long they’ve been living a correct life, no matter how well they’ve paid their dues, that they can never vote again in that state. There are all kinds of battles we have to fight. But we miss the forest for the trees if we don’t also recognize that huge chunks of us, citizens, just give away our power. We’d rather complain than do something about it. We won’t vote, and then we’ll talk about the terrible political process that isn’t doing anything.

“Seize the power that you have,” he added. “Make this democracy work. Do not succumb to cynicism.”




“President Obama is continuing to urge Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act, the historic 1965 law removing legal barriers that prevented African-Americans from exercising their right to vote. “Our state leaders and legislatures must make it easier — not harder — for more Americans to have their voices heard,” Obama wrote in a letter to the New York Times Magazine published online Wednesday. The president said he was “inspired” by Jim Rutenberg’s Aug. 2 cover story, “A Dream Undone: Inside the 50-year campaign to roll back the Voting Rights Act.” …. In his story, Rutenberg profiled Rosanell Eaton, a plaintiff in a North Carolina case arguing to repeal voting restrictions that were enacted in 2013. Obama called the 94-year-old an “unsung American hero.” “She has not given up,” he wrote. “She’s still marching. She’s still fighting to make real the promise of America. She still believes that We the People have the awesome power to make our union more perfect. And if we join her, we, too, can reaffirm the fundamental truth of the words Rosanell recited.” …. “Sadly, too many states are making it harder for folks to vote — instituting photo ID laws that on the surface sound good,” Obama said. “But in practice, it turns out that for seniors and for poorer folks, that’s not always easy to do.” Such laws, the president said, don’t “address a real problem because there are almost no instances of people going to vote in somebody else’s name.” …. So, yes, we have to be vigilant in pushing back against laws that seek to disenfranchise people. Yes, we should be fighting back against laws, for example, that say ex-felons, no matter how long they’ve been living a correct life, no matter how well they’ve paid their dues, that they can never vote again in that state. There are all kinds of battles we have to fight. But we miss the forest for the trees if we don’t also recognize that huge chunks of us, citizens, just give away our power.”

I do hope that Obama's attempt to get the lawmakers to do something meaningful about real voting rights legislation will be effective. I simply consider the right wing forces to be not a Christian army for a conservative cause, but a bunch of racist and money-hungry hooligans out to keep their cronies in power. Please go to this website and see the history of the Voting Rights Act as explained here. It is a long, sad tale, whose end has not yet come, I'm afraid. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html?_r=0, A DREAM UNDONE, Inside the 50-year campaign to roll back the Voting Rights Act., By JIM RUTENBERG,
JULY 29, 2015 tells the story of Henry Frye, The first black chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, as he proceeds from an abortive attempt to register to vote in the 1950s forward as his career advanced. This long article is fascinating and informative, as it describes a number of things that I was only partially aware of from the news reports, and even more that were new to me. The amount of effort that Republicans have expended to prevent blacks from voting is amazing. I don’t understand why they don’t consider that practice to be unethical and therefore beneath the dignity and statesmanship of the very fine members of their party. Of course, I do know. If they have complete power in this country their wealth will not be called into question and they will not have to be polite to anyone who is not a member of their country club. I have a feeling, though, that with Facebook and other Internet sources available to nearly every person in this country and an active free press (which they always call the Liberal Press) they will get into trouble over some of their crude remarks, such as an Alabama group of Republicans made when speaking of a feared rise in the black vote on a gambling issue, and made the statement that the “Aboriginees” would arrive in “HUD-financed buses” to the polls. That was in 2010, and quoted in the NYT Magazine article. Read it.





https://www.yahoo.com/politics/whats-behind-bernie-sanders-enormous-rallies-126531662801.html

What’s behind Bernie Sanders’ enormous rallies
Andrew Romano
West Coast Correspondent
August 12, 2015

Photograph -- Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks to a sold-out crowd during a campaign event in Los Angeles on Monday. (Photo: Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

LOS ANGELES — On Monday evening I took an Uber from my house in northeast L.A. to the Memorial Sports Arena just south of downtown. Correction: I took the Uber to exit 20A on the 110 South — the off-ramp closest to the Memorial Sports Arena. There were so many cars heading to the venue that the entire right half of the freeway had become a parking lot. It was almost 7 p.m. — start time. I told my driver, Petros, that I was going to have to get out and walk.

Petros looked puzzled.

“Is something going on tonight?” he asked.

“Yes,” I said. “Bernie Sanders is having a rally.”

Petros still looked puzzled. I set off down the side of the freeway.

I’d come to see Sanders speak out of a sense of professional duty, at least in part. Presidential candidates usually descend on deep blue California for one reason and one reason only: money. They fly in, flutter around a $40,000-per-head celebrity fundraiser at George Clooney’s house and fly out. Actual rallies with actual voters here are rare. As a Los Angeles-based political reporter, I would have been remiss if I had skipped the first big one in years.

But I’ll admit that I was personally curious as well. At first, many in the press had dismissed Sanders, the 73-year-old Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist who announced his presidential ambitions in April, as a cranky, irrelevant gadfly. And yet now, three months later, Sanders was polling at 36 percent in New Hampshire — a mere six points behind Hillary Clinton, the all-but-anointed Democratic nominee. In Iowa he was already attracting a quarter of the vote. And for weeks he’d been touring cities and college towns around the country, attracting audiences several times larger than anything Clinton or her would-be Republican rivals could hope for — even though people like Petros had never heard of him.

What’s going on? What is a huge Bernie Sanders rally actually like in person? And why are so many progressives suddenly so riled up about a career legislator whose hunched shoulders, messy white hair and gruff Brooklyn yawp they’ve spent the last few decades ignoring on C-SPAN?

After trudging through the trash on the shoulder of the 110 and circumnavigating an endless, gated parking lot, I finally arrived at the arena. My initial impression was that I’d been here before. I attended my first political rally when I was a freshman in college — a concert for Ralph Nader at Madison Square Garden. (A cute girl with an extra ticket invited me at the last minute.) I remember a man who was vowing to fast until Nader, then a Green Party candidate, was allowed to debate George W. Bush and Al Gore. I remember stoned undergrads in “Bush and Gore Make Me Wanna Ralph” T-shirts. I remember dyed green hair. I remember multiple piercings. And I remember a lot of older people — baby boomers who might have once been accused of smelling like patchouli but who now looked just like the conservative churchgoers you’d meet at Republican events.

What’s behind Bernie Sanders’ enormous rallies

The line in L.A. was thousands and thousands of people long — it snaked around the block — and stylistically, it seemed pretty similar. The couple who pulled up in a yellow Corolla with a collage of bumper stickers on the back (“Vote Dammit,” “Equality on My Mind,” “Minecraft,” “Cthulhu”) and “Honk 4 Bernie” and “#TakeBackAmerica” written in red marker on their windows. The skinny, middle-aged African-American man in a black Occupy Wall Street T-shirt and a large black hat. The flip-flops. The backward baseball caps. The beards. The crowd was full of college kids from nearby USC; young, progressive professionals; and liberal retirees in loose-fitting Ralph Lauren. Mostly white, but still fairly diverse. Near the entrance there was the usual rally-going array of activists (“Ferguson is everywhere”) and opportunists (“Feel the Bern” buttons for ONLY $5). As I entered the arena, “Turn! Turn! Turn!” by the Byrds was playing on the PA.

Even Sanders’ speech sounded a lot like Nader’s. Back in 2000, Nader also slammed big business for what he called “a corporate crime wave,” accusing both the Democratic and Republican parties of being controlled by corporations. “Our country has been sold to the highest bidder,” Nader said. “We’re going backwards, while the rich are becoming superrich.” He touted his plans for paid parental leave and paid sick leave. He criticized America for failing to join the rest of the developed world in enacting universal health care. And he railed against the criminal justice system, arguing, “The major public housing project in this country is building prison cells.” Afterward, voter Thomas King, then 22, contrasted Nader with that year’s Democratic Senate nominee from New York. “I’m not too pleased with the fact that [Hillary] Clinton and the New Democrats have moved so close to the center,” King told the New York Times. “This is a populist movement.”

Hearing Sanders speak on Monday about an economy that is “rigged … to benefit the people on top,” about how he “can’t be bought” by corporations, about how it “makes a lot more sense to be investing in education than incarceration,” about how it’s an “international embarrassment” that the U.S. doesn’t have “Medicare for all,” and about how his “family values,” unlike the GOP’s, encompass paid leave for parents, I couldn’t help but feel a little déjà vu — even if the crowd roared after every line like they’d never encountered another candidate willing to say these kinds of things.

Sanders has real appeal for progressives craving an alternative to Clinton: the dogged consistency, the ambitious policy prescriptions, the rumpled authenticity. All of that came across more clearly on the stump than it ever does on TV.

But Nader was rumpled and authentic, too. That’s why I was more interested Monday in the two big differences on display in Los Angeles between Sanders and his anti-corporate predecessor — not to mention every other major outsider candidate who’s come before, whether conservative (like Ross Perot), libertarian (like Ron Paul) or liberal (like Robert La Follette).

The first difference was the sheer size of the event. As soon as Sanders waddled onstage in Los Angeles, he announced that “more than 27,000” people were in attendance. Such claims are impossible to verify, but the 16,000-seat arena was nearly full, and thousands more were watching in overflow areas outside the venue. The rally looked (and sounded) massive — more like a deafening, ecstatic, slightly drunken rock concert than a fringe political gathering. And the L.A. event wasn’t an isolated incident. Roughly 28,000 people showed up for Sanders’ rally in Portland, Ore., on Sunday. He drew 15,000 in Seattle; 11,000 in Phoenix; 10,000 in Madison, Wis.; 8,000 in Dallas; and 4,500 in New Orleans. All told, Sanders has attracted more than 100,000 people to his campaign events in recent weeks.

That’s completely unprecedented this early in a presidential primary cycle. (The election is still 15 months away.) For comparison’s sake, Clinton’s biggest crowd so far this year was 5,500. There were 15,000 people at the Nader concert I saw in 2000 — but that was three weeks before Election Day. Paul’s storied 2008 and 2012 crowds topped out around 10,000. Sanders is even surpassing Barack Obama’s revolutionary 2008 campaign. In February 2007, Obama drew 20,000 people to Town Lake in Austin, Texas; in April, he attracted 20,000 to an outdoor rally at Yellow Jacket Park in Atlanta; and in September, 24,000 came to see him speak in New York’s Washington Square Park. But Obama rallies didn’t pass the 28,000 mark until 2008.

The second difference on display Monday was what I’ll call the “responsiveness” of Sanders’ campaign. For the first few months after he entered the contest, Sanders largely shied away from issues of racial equality: bias in policing, mass incarceration, voting rights, the treatment of unauthorized immigrants. In July, Sanders, who has always been “all about unions, corporations — basically economic issues rather than cultural ones,” according to an old friend and early political confidant, appeared at Netroots Nation and frustrated civil rights activists when he answered questions about racial issues by pivoting back to economic ones. “Black lives of course matter,” he said defensively after he was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. “If you don’t want me to be here, that’s OK.” Then in Seattle last weekend, another group of Black Lives Matter protesters took the stage and refused to let Sanders speak.

Sanders has a reputation for self-righteousness, and initially he seemed to be sticking to his “it’s a class problem not a race problem” script. But in the weeks since Netroots Nation, something seems to have changed. First, the candidate took a meeting with Symone Sanders (no relation), a young black organizer with the D.C.-based Coalition for Juvenile Justice. He listened to her unsolicited advice on racial issues. Then he offered her a job as his national press secretary. A day after being interrupted in Seattle, the candidate released a sweeping policy platform designed to combat racial inequality. And in Portland and Los Angeles, Symone Sanders debuted as the new public face of the campaign, emceeing each event and introducing her boss to his supporters.

“It’s very important that we say those words: ‘black lives matter,’” Symone Sanders said in L.A. “It’s also important that people in office turn those words into action.”

A few minutes later, Bernie Sanders pledged to do just that. “One year after the death of Michael Brown,” he said from the podium, “there’s no candidate who will fight harder to end institutional racism.”

Ultimately, these two differences — the mind-boggling size of Sanders’ early campaign events and the speed with which he has reshuffled his campaign in response to activists’ concerns — may have less to do with the messenger himself, or his message, than the changing world Sanders is now trying to reach, and the tools he now has at his disposal to reach it.

Nearly eight years ago, I wrote a story for Newsweek about the rise of what some observers were then referring to as “long tail” candidates for president. (The phrase was a reference to the theory, popularized by Wired editor Chris Anderson, that “our economy and culture is shifting from mass markets to million of niches.”) My argument was that we were beginning to see a shift away from the two-sizes-fit-all categories of Democrat and Republican and toward a more personalized, motley politics.

“As the Web allows niche voters to form communities, raise money and get heard,” I wrote, “it’s inevitable that the major-party machines will clash with — and ultimately accommodate — the individualized constituencies they’re struggling to serve.”

The experts I talked to made a couple of predictions. First, that “unlike their predecessors, the next generation of niche politicians won’t necessarily choose the third-party route. Instead, tomorrow’s most successful narrowcasters will likely run as major-party candidates in the primaries, where widely seen debates and easy ballot access will bring exposure and credibility.” Second, while long-tail candidates won’t win the White House anytime soon, “their niche concerns and vocal supporters will demand unprecedented attention” — and mainstream politicians will begin to mine their more marginal counterparts for ideas (and votes).

The sense I got Monday is that the Sanders campaign is the first full realization of this concept. Instagram didn’t exist when Obama launched his presidential campaign in 2007. The iPhone had yet to be released. Twitter still hadn’t taken off. Facebook was a way to connect with your real-life friends — not a global hub for news, marketing and politics.

Since then, social media has permeated every aspect of our lives. It’s become our constant mobile companion. It basically is the media at this point — the main way we absorb information about what’s happening in the world. And that, in turn, has amplified the long-tail effect. When every candidate is in your pocket all the time, it’s easier to find the one who seems to speak for you; when your feed is full of friends echoing your political passions, it’s easier to feel like you’re part of something bigger than yourself — a “political revolution,” as Sanders put in Los Angeles. Nothing is fringe; everything feels mainstream. And when activists revolt, a candidate can’t help but hear; every criticism is reposted, regrammed and retweeted until it becomes impossible to ignore.

That’s a big part of the reason why more than 27,000 people showed up to see Sanders speak in Los Angeles: because everyone seemed to be going. And it’s a big part of the reason why Sanders shifted his stance on racial justice so quickly as well: because everyone seemed to be complaining.

As I was leaving the Memorial Sports Arena Monday night, I met a man named Steve Smith. He’d caravanned into the city from Azusa with his wife and four friends. I asked him what he thought of the rally.

“It was absolutely electrifying — like seeing Zeppelin or the Who,” said Smith, 61. “Compare this to Hillary — a couple hundred people with zero enthusiasm. Sanders is the horse to keep your eye on. He’s the only candidate I know who can get huge numbers of the under-25s out to vote. The others don’t stand a chance.”

I was going to ask whether Smith really thought Sanders could upend the system — whether the senator from Vermont could do what Nader, Perot and Paul had failed to do — or whether that was just how it seemed on a warm night in Southern California, surrounded by tens of thousands of hopeful supporters streaming north through Exposition Park. But then I noticed him sniffing the air.

I sniffed too. Somebody was smoking pot.

“A familiar smell!” said Smith. He grinned. “Not bad at all.”




“What’s going on? What is a huge Bernie Sanders rally actually like in person? And why are so many progressives suddenly so riled up about a career legislator whose hunched shoulders, messy white hair and gruff Brooklyn yawp they’ve spent the last few decades ignoring on C-SPAN? …. Ultimately, these two differences — the mind-boggling size of Sanders’ early campaign events and the speed with which he has reshuffled his campaign in response to activists’ concerns — may have less to do with the messenger himself, or his message, than the changing world Sanders is now trying to reach, and the tools he now has at his disposal to reach it. .… That’s a big part of the reason why more than 27,000 people showed up to see Sanders speak in Los Angeles: because everyone seemed to be going. And it’s a big part of the reason why Sanders shifted his stance on racial justice so quickly as well: because everyone seemed to be complaining. As I was leaving the Memorial Sports Arena Monday night, I met a man named Steve Smith. He’d caravanned into the city from Azusa with his wife and four friends. I asked him what he thought of the rally. “It was absolutely electrifying — like seeing Zeppelin or the Who,” said Smith, 61. “Compare this to Hillary — a couple hundred people with zero enthusiasm. Sanders is the horse to keep your eye on. He’s the only candidate I know who can get huge numbers of the under-25s out to vote. The others don’t stand a chance.” …. . In July, Sanders, who has always been “all about unions, corporations — basically economic issues rather than cultural ones,” according to an old friend and early political confidant, appeared at Netroots Nation and frustrated civil rights activists when he answered questions about racial issues by pivoting back to economic ones. “Black lives of course matter,” he said defensively after he was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. “If you don’t want me to be here, that’s OK.” Then in Seattle last weekend, another group of Black Lives Matter protesters took the stage and refused to let Sanders speak.”

The reason Sanders is drawing such large crowds is because he isn't too clever or too afraid to speak up for the poor and the Middle Class and for fairness and justice in the streets. Too many Democrats are very timid. I pray Sanders will succeed and continue to grow in popularity. Sanders has already changed his platform to include the expressed needs of some insistent black voices, the BLM. The article above said in his defense that he has always been more oriented toward unions and workers like many socialists, than toward specifically black or other cultural issues. I have never seen any sign that Bernie is anti-black, but rather that he has not been attuned to the need for that emphasis in his platform. He has already changed to include the movement. The black website http://egbertowillies.com/author/egberto/ has an interesting video on which he discusses that and mentions that BLM also got on the stage with Jeb Bush to make him address their issues. It isn’t only against Sanders.

I do personally feel that the police/citizen/minority matters are very serious issues and need to be addressed directly by Congress and in this election season. The fact that every little community around the country has its own police rules and administration doesn’t help because many of those localities are racist in their bias. Conservatives will be very unhappy if an overarching federal law is made which governs what police do, but I am afraid that only that will stop these problems from occurring. Maybe I’m wrong. There have been in the news several instances of city police departments that are voluntarily undertaking reforms, and that should not be ignored. I’m encouraged about that. I just don’t think there will be enough of those instances to fix the problem on the whole.

I hope Sanders gets behind a national law that mandates clear-cut and firm discipline in the cases of police abuse, specific standards of police behavior when dealing with the public at all times, a higher level of educational qualifications, good interpersonal skills and a clean work background, plus good mental health as well as physical health; and then the various states can make their own rules within that framework. Hopefully those things will help. There are psychological tests which can pinpoint a racial bias or the tendency in an individual to be violent and otherwise abusive, and an interesting news article a few days ago about a "treatment" for racial bias. It's not foolproof, but seems to have some effect.Go back over the last few days blogs for it. I say that because, just like male teachers especially in the early school grades seem to have a greater tendency to turn out to be pedophiles than do women, the police force attracts a certain number of bullies and worse who want to do those things and get away without being punished. They just simply aren’t there “to protect and serve.” They need to be weeded out if possible before they put on the uniform at all.





http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/gop_shutdown_watch_how_the_planned_parenthood_controversy_could_haunt_republicans/

“GOP shutdown watch”: How the Planned Parenthood controversy could haunt Republicans
SOPHIA TESFAYE
TUESDAY, AUG 11, 2015

Female senators lead the charge in defense of the women's health organization and target vulnerable Republicans

Photograph -- A "Stand Up for Women's Health" rally in Washington April 7, 2011. (Credit: Joshua Roberts / Reuters)

Senate Democrats have gone on an all-out offensive over Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, launching a concerted campaign to target vulnerable Republican Senators who voted to defund the women’s health organization.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee launched “GOP Shutdown Watch” this week after a poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that more than 75 percent of voters in three key Senate battleground states disagree with GOP efforts to shutdown the government if all federal funding to Planned Parenthood isn’t immediately shut off. The poll also found that more than 65 percent of voters in all three states oppose any effort to deny funding to the women’s health organization.

A majority of voters in New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania said they would be “less likely” to vote for Republican Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman of Ohio if they supported a bill defunding Planned Parenthood, which has come under attack from conservatives after a series of undercover videos showed officials within the organization discussing the details of fetal tissue donation. All three Republican senators joined with their fellow Republicans to cut off federal funding for the women’s health organization and abortion provider in a vote last week.

That vote, of course, failed to garner a veto-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate and now some of the most strident Senate conservatives (and Republican presidential candidates looking to gain attention) have vowed to tie another defunding effort to a larger vote to fund the federal government this fall, against the objections of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The Hill explains the DSCC’s strategy of getting on the offense ahead of a Planned Parenthood witch-hunt fueled GOP government shutdown attempt:

The DSCC this week will launch a five-figure “GOP Shutdown Watch” campaign featuring Twitter and Facebook ads and rapid-response news alerts “highlighting the latest developments in the Republican push to attack women’s health and shutdown the government.”

The DSCC media push is also targeting Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has attracted a primary challenger, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is running for president and senator simultaneously.

“Time and again, Republican Senators have voted to defund Planned Parenthood and other women’s healthcare programs, and now they need to answer if they will shut down the government to score cheap political points at the expense of women across the country,” DSCC National Press Secretary Sadie Weiner said in a statement.

The targeting of longtime Senator John McCain is of particular interest because if the Arizona Republican can survive a primary challenge, he’ll likely face a woman challenger, Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. And in the poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood, Pennsylvania Sen. Toomey came within the margin of error against an unspecified Democratic challenger.

Led by the women of the Senate, Democrats have been pushing back forcefully on this latest in a long line of attacks against Planned Parenthood. California Senator Dianne Feinstein noted during an impassion floor speech defending the organization that if Republicans were successful in defending [sic] Planned Parenthood, “Texas loses half of its remaining abortion providers in one fell swoop,” while her colleague, Sen. Barbara Boxer, blasted the group behind the undercover videos as an “extremist group.” The leading Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Patty Murray of Washington, vowed that “political attacks and threats to shut down the government aren’t going to get in the way of women’s access to the care they need.” And who can forget Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pitch-perfect response to the GOP’s nefarious defunding efforts?

Although New Hampshire’s two female senators were able to cross party aisles to join forces in an effort to protect pregnant women in New Hampshire from discrimination just last month, the two women are at odds over the funding of Planned Parenthood. Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen has been a vocal opponent of what she described as “a attack on women’s health [that] is politically motivated and it holds hostage the millions of women and families who depend on Planned Parenthood.” For her part, Sen. Ayotte voted against the last Repulican-led government shutdown but did support Senate Republican’s latest attempt to defund Planned Parenthood.

On Monday, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who has strongly defended the organization after admitting she found the undercover videos “disturbing,” blasted the “three men” on New Hampshire’s Executive Council who voted last week to defund Planned Parenthood in the Granite State, calling the vote a “disappointment”:

It’s appalling that three men in the chambers of the Executive Council would deny women across this state the health care they need and deserve. It shows yet again why we need more leaders like Gov. (Maggie) Hassan and Sen. (Jeanne) Shaheen, who are willing to stand up for women, and just how out-of-touch and out of date Republican leaders are.”

And in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called for an investigation of the group behind the videos, the Center for Medical Progress, which she said was “trying to ensnare Planned Parenthood in a controversy that doesn’t exist.”




“The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee launched “GOP Shutdown Watch” this week after a poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that more than 75 percent of voters in three key Senate battleground states disagree with GOP efforts to shutdown the government if all federal funding to Planned Parenthood isn’t immediately shut off. The poll also found that more than 65 percent of voters in all three states oppose any effort to deny funding to the women’s health organization. …. All three Republican senators joined with their fellow Republicans to cut off federal funding for the women’s health organization and abortion provider in a vote last week. That vote, of course, failed to garner a veto-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate and now some of the most strident Senate conservatives (and Republican presidential candidates looking to gain attention) have vowed to tie another defunding effort to a larger vote to fund the federal government this fall, against the objections of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. …. The DSCC media push is also targeting Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has attracted a primary challenger, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is running for president and senator simultaneously. “Time and again, Republican Senators have voted to defund Planned Parenthood and other women’s healthcare programs, and now they need to answer if they will shut down the government to score cheap political points at the expense of women across the country,” DSCC National Press Secretary Sadie Weiner said in a statement. …. while her colleague, Sen. Barbara Boxer, blasted the group behind the undercover videos as an “extremist group.” The leading Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Patty Murray of Washington, vowed that “political attacks and threats to shut down the government aren’t going to get in the way of women’s access to the care they need.” …. And in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called for an investigation of the group behind the videos, the Center for Medical Progress, which she said was “trying to ensnare Planned Parenthood in a controversy that doesn’t exist.”

See the August 3 blog for a full discussion on Planned Parenthood and the organization that is targeting them with two videos which seem to have been heavily edited for a particular result. The distribution of foetal parts for a small fee such as $25.00 (never in the $100.00 range as the organization claimed) is done not merely by Planned Parenthood but by hospitals and universities across the nation if they perform abortions. The “buyers” are those who need foetal cells for medical experimentation on a number of diseases, AIDS for one. The process is strictly legal and is not done “for profit” as claimed.

As for the Republicans trying again to shut down the government, that is a technique that in my opinion is so wasteful of time and energy that it should be abolished. When I was in college I heard the argument that democracy is so impractical and inefficient that some form of benign despotism would be better. I don’t believe that, of course, but nonsensical laws and legislative rules should be scrapped, I believe. There is a potential that some serious national problem could happen during that time period when the Republicans are playing their war games, and we could be in trouble because of a bunch of Tea Party silliness.





http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/former-us-president-jimmy-carter-says-he-has-cancer/ar-BBlGLk4?ocid=iehp

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter says he has cancer
Reuters
By Letitia Stein and David Adams
August 12, 2015

Photograph -- © Andrew Burton/Getty Images Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter speaks at a press conference to open a new exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History on January 12, 2015 in New York City.


Aug 12 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Wednesday that recent liver surgery revealed he had cancer that had spread to other parts of his body.

"I will be rearranging my schedule as necessary so I can undergo treatment by physicians at Emory Healthcare," Carter, 90, said in a statement. "A more complete public statement will be made when facts are known, possibly next week."

Carter, a Democrat, served as the 39th president from 1977 to 1981 after defeating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford. He was defeated for re-election in 1980 by Republican Ronald Reagan.

The Carter Center in Atlanta said last week that he had undergone elective surgery at Emory University Hospital to remove a small mass in his liver.

It added that the operation had proceeded without issues and that the prognosis was excellent for a full recovery.

Carter cut short a trip to Guyana in May after feeling unwell and returned to Georgia, where he served as governor and a state senator. He had traveled to the South American country to observe national elections. At the time, the center said only that Carter had departed after "not feeling well."

Republican Georgia Governor Nathan Deal and his wife issued a statement saying Carter was "in their prayers as he goes through treatment."

Carter received words of sympathy and encouragement via Twitter from former CNN host Larry King: "We go back many years. Stay strong Mr. President."

A Nobel Peace Prize winner and activist on a range of issues from global democracy to women and children's rights, as well as affordable housing, Carter published his latest book last month, titled "A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety."

In July, he gave a wide-ranging interview to Reuters Editor-at-Large Sir Harold Evans on his life from his childhood on a Georgia peanut farm to his presidency. (http://tmsnrt.rs/1f8BND2)

Carter recalled growing up in a home without running water or electricity, at a time when he said the daily wage was $1 for a man, 75 cents for a woman, and a loaf of bread cost 5 cents.

He said the civil rights movement led to important progress toward racial equality in the United States, but lamented "there's still a great prejudice in police forces against black people and obviously some remnants of extreme racism."




“A Nobel Peace Prize winner and activist on a range of issues from global democracy to women and children's rights, as well as affordable housing, Carter published his latest book last month, titled "A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety." In July, he gave a wide-ranging interview to Reuters Editor-at-Large Sir Harold Evans on his life from his childhood on a Georgia peanut farm to his presidency. http://tmsnrt.rs/1f8BND2). Carter recalled growing up in a home without running water or electricity, at a time when he said the daily wage was $1 for a man, 75 cents for a woman, and a loaf of bread cost 5 cents.”

For a very informative biography, go to this website:
http://www.biography.com/people/jimmy-carter-9240013, Jimmy Carter Biography, U.S. President (1924–). In spite of his admitting that he had “lusted in his heart,” he had a clean if lackluster reputation before and after he entered the political arena. In the Panama Canal matter and the disastrous events at the embassy in Iran he was considered a “weak” president. He was, however, a success in several diplomatic actions, famously getting Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to “lay down the hatchet” and sign the Camp David Accords in 1978 followed by the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in 1979. For this notable achievement and a lifetime of charity work and diplomacy he won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for “his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.”

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html, “Nobel Peace Prize For 2002 gives the complete commendation for his work. People, most of whom are Republicans, can say he was weak, but I disagree. He was good. He tried his best to live the Christian life as given by Jesus rather than joining the racist local organizations where he grew up or running a corrupt political campaign. I have always liked him, especially for his infectious “grin.” In 1977 I was working at a small business college called Benjamin Franklin University,” and was sitting in the office with my boss and friend who was a woman about my own age, when suddenly police sirens filled the air and four or five black limousines with rifles sticking out the windows rolled up behind six or eight motorcycle policemen. My friend and I ran out of the office, leaving it unguarded. Some things are more important than others, after all. We took a place on the sidewalk outside the glass lobby of a hotel that was there. Within a couple of minutes the limousine doors were opened and out walked Jimmy Carter with a jaunty cadence and his world famous grin. He passed within three feet of me. Now that was exciting.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/africas-lions-may-face-new-potential-threat/

Africa's lions may face new potential threat
AP August 11, 2015

21 Photos -- Everything you need to know about lions


JOHANNESBURG -- Conservationists are warning of a new potential threat to Africa's wild lion population: The increasing use of lion bones to replace tiger bones in traditional medicine in parts of Asia.

The lion bone trade, which has surged since around 2008, is mostly based on the legal hunting of captive-bred lions in South Africa, with negligible impact on the country's wild lion population, according to a study released last month.

More research is needed to determine whether the "harvesting" of lion bones may be occurring elsewhere in Africa, said Dr. Vivienne Williams, a researcher at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and the main author of the lion bone study.

Lions are designated as vulnerable on an international "red list" of species facing threats. The International Union for Conservation of Nature noted successful lion conservation in southern Africa, but said lions in West Africa are critically endangered and rapid population declines were recorded in East Africa.

TRAFFIC, a wildlife trade monitoring network, and the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at the University of Oxford were also involved in the lion bone report. The university research group had been monitoring Cecil, a lion whose allegedly illegal killing by an American hunter in Zimbabwe prompted an international uproar.

There are more than 9,100 lions in South Africa, two-thirds bred in captivity, according to the report. Estimates of the continent's wild lion population vary. Some experts cite 20,000 or so, a sharp drop from past decades.

The lion bone report said demand in China and Southeast Asia followed stronger conservation measures aimed at protecting tigers and other Asian big cats, possibly prompting dealers to turn to African lions as a substitute.

Legal exports of South African lion skeletons increased from about 50 skeletons in 2008 to 573 in 2011, the report said.




“The increasing use of lion bones to replace tiger bones in traditional medicine in parts of Asia. The lion bone trade, which has surged since around 2008, is mostly based on the legal hunting of captive-bred lions in South Africa, with negligible impact on the country's wild lion population, according to a study released last month. …. The International Union for Conservation of Nature noted successful lion conservation in southern Africa, but said lions in West Africa are critically endangered and rapid population declines were recorded in East Africa. …. The lion bone report said demand in China and Southeast Asia followed stronger conservation measures aimed at protecting tigers and other Asian big cats, possibly prompting dealers to turn to African lions as a substitute. Legal exports of South African lion skeletons increased from about 50 skeletons in 2008 to 573 in 2011, the report said.”

Religion should be contemplative rather than destructive and medicine should be science based in my opinion. Animals should not be “harvested” for reasons other than food, and then they should be captive bred for that purpose and killed quickly and humanely. Wildlife is a part of the beauty of nature, and no species should be decimated as they are being today. Of course, that always has happened, which is probably the main reason there are no longer any wooly mammoths. At least the ancient mammoth hunters used their skin and tusks for shelters and their meat for food.






http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/08/13/431695242/more-evidence-that-music-eases-pain-anxiety-after-surgery

More Evidence That Music Eases Pain, Anxiety After Surgery
Richard Harris
AUGUST 13, 2015

Photograph -- We all get by better with a little help from our tunes.
iStockphoto

Hospitals have a free and powerful tool that they could use more often to help reduce the pain that surgery patients experience: music.

Scores of studies over the years have looked at the power of music to ease this kind of pain; an analysis published Wednesday in The Lancet that pulls all those findings together builds a strong case.

When researchers in London started combing the medical literature for studies about music's soothing power, they found hundreds of small studies suggesting some benefit. The idea goes back to the days of Florence Nightingale, and music was used to ease surgical pain as early as 1914. (My colleague Patricia Neighmond reported on one of these studies just a few months ago).

Dr. Catherine Meads at Brunel University focused her attention on 73 rigorous, randomized clinical trials about the role of music among surgery patients.

"As they studies themselves were small, they really didn't find all that much," Meads says. "But once we put them all together, we had much more power to find whether music worked or not."

She and her colleagues now report that, yes indeed, surgery patients who listened to music, either before, during or after surgery, were better off — in terms of reduced pain, less anxiety and more patient satisfaction.

Maybe most notably, patients listening to music used significantly less pain medication. Meads says, on average, music helped the patients drop two notches on the 10-point pain scale. That's the same relief typically reported with a dose of pain-killing medicine.

Some hospitals do encourage patients to listen to music, but Meads says the practice should be more widely adopted, given the evidence of its effectiveness.

In many of these studies, she notes, the patients chose the music they listened to. "It could be anything from Spanish guitar to Chinese classical music."

And, unlike drugs, she says, music "doesn't seem to have any side effects."

Well, there may be one side effect. A few studies (such as this one) have noted that operating rooms are very noisy places, and music played in the room can make it harder for the surgical staff to hear what's going on. Doctors sometimes have to repeat their commands, creating opportunities for misunderstanding or error.

"If surgeons are listening to music, it can be a bit of a distraction," Meads says. "So it may be it's not such a wise idea to have it during the operation itself."

That was not, however, something Meads analyzed in her study of music and medicine. Many surgeons listen to music during a procedure; discouraging that habit could be a tough sell.




"As they studies themselves were small, they really didn't find all that much," Meads says. "But once we put them all together, we had much more power to find whether music worked or not." She and her colleagues now report that, yes indeed, surgery patients who listened to music, either before, during or after surgery, were better off — in terms of reduced pain, less anxiety and more patient satisfaction. Maybe most notably, patients listening to music used significantly less pain medication. Meads says, on average, music helped the patients drop two notches on the 10-point pain scale. That's the same relief typically reported with a dose of pain-killing medicine. …. Well, there may be one side effect. A few studies (such as this one) have noted that operating rooms are very noisy places, and music played in the room can make it harder for the surgical staff to hear what's going on. Doctors sometimes have to repeat their commands, creating opportunities for misunderstanding or error. "If surgeons are listening to music, it can be a bit of a distraction," Meads says. "So it may be it's not such a wise idea to have it during the operation itself." ….

This study is not surprising at all. I have been in the dentist's chair with and without music, and with is much better. The article suggested Spanish guitar playing as a possibility and that would be very good because some music is exciting rather than relaxing. The writer states that appropriate music can drop the pain experience maybe two points on a ten point scale. I would take that. I still want to be numbed, however.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/12/431978076/oath-keepers-say-theyre-defending-ferguson-others-say-theyre-not-helping

Oath Keepers Say They're Defending Ferguson; Others Say They're Not Helping
Hansi Lo Wang, Sam Sanders
AUGUST 12, 2015

Photograph -- Heavily armed civilians with a group known as the Oath Keepers in Ferguson, Mo., early Tuesday. St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar has said the presence of the group was "both unnecessary and inflammatory."
Jeff Roberson/AP


Ferguson, Mo., officials said Wednesday that the state of emergency in the town will continue at least one more day. Demonstrations that marked the first anniversary of the death of Michael Brown along with gunfire that erupted Sunday night led to the emergency declaration. Police say a suspected gunman, who was shot by police, was not part of the protest rallies.

Among the crowds that have gathered in Ferguson, an unusual group of armed men has showed up. They call themselves the Oath Keepers, and their website describes them as "a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to 'defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' "

NPR's Hansi Lo Wang is in Ferguson covering events there and describes the Oath Keepers as "armed white men wearing camouflage and flak jackets." One of them, John Karriman, a teacher at Missouri Southern State University's Police Academy, told Hansi, "We're not a threat to anybody other than to those that would seek to usurp our Constitution and not afford people their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. ... We're the sheepdogs that keep the rest of the flock safe."

But some local officials say the Oath Keepers aren't helpful, or even welcome. And protesters taking part in the #BlackLivesMatter movement say they fear the Oath Keepers. "I was really afraid of the four to five white men, dressed in camos, semi-automatic rifles plowing through the crowd," said protester Mark Loehrer at a St. Louis County Council meeting on Tuesday. "Then they went across the street and talked to the cops for about 25 minutes, and then they decided to come plow through the crowd again."

Another protester, Mary Chandler, said the police failed to confront the Oath Keepers in the way they challenge some of the protesters in Ferguson. "We can't even stand on this side of the street without the weapons being pointed at us," Chandler said during a street demonstration on Tuesday night. "But yet you can bring those people that can come in, no questions asked, with rifles and things strapped across their body and everything is OK and you don't feel any sense of danger at all."

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said there's no record of Oath Keepers' engaging in political violence and that the group is mainly driven by anti-government views. "The core ideas of these groups relate to the fear that elites in this country and around the world are slowly and steadily and nefariously moving us towards a one-world government, the so-called 'New World Order,' " he said.

Both the St. Louis County police chief, Jon Belmar, and County Executive Steve Stenger say the Oath Keepers aren't welcome in Ferguson. Stenger told St. Louis Public Radio's Jason Rosenbaum, "The last thing you need in a situation like we have are people walking around with semi-automatic weapons. It's inflaming a situation that's already inflamed."

But Stenger pointed out that until he and the county prosecuting attorney can find a way to keep the Oath Keepers out of Ferguson, they can still walk around the protests with their guns. "The state Legislature saw it in their wisdom, which I would say a lack of wisdom, to pass laws that allow individuals to open-carry firearms anywhere in Missouri," he said.




“Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said there's no record of Oath Keepers' engaging in political violence and that the group is mainly driven by anti-government views. "The core ideas of these groups relate to the fear that elites in this country and around the world are slowly and steadily and nefariously moving us towards a one-world government, the so-called 'New World Order,' " he said. Both the St. Louis County police chief, Jon Belmar, and County Executive Steve Stenger say the Oath Keepers aren't welcome in Ferguson. Stenger told St. Louis Public Radio's Jason Rosenbaum, "The last thing you need in a situation like we have are people walking around with semi-automatic weapons. It's inflaming a situation that's already inflamed." …. But Stenger pointed out that until he and the county prosecuting attorney can find a way to keep the Oath Keepers out of Ferguson, they can still walk around the protests with their guns. "The state Legislature saw it in their wisdom, which I would say a lack of wisdom, to pass laws that allow individuals to open-carry firearms anywhere in Missouri," he said.

I don’t see how we could possibly ever get to a “one world government.” We as humans simply don’t get along well enough for that. Whether it’s religion, race or nationality, conflicts are smoldering everywhere. In my twenties we thought about such things, but I no longer believe it. I just hope we can avoid another world war or even a nuclear war. Yet there are a number of organizations here in the US who fear an armed takeover by the UN. I looked that up on the Net once and it seems in the days of Woodrow Wilson there were idealists who were indeed thinking of "One World Government" through the UN. At that time some Americans were against our joining the UN. Thank goodness that viewpoint no longer holds sway here. Those people who are Xenophobes are mainly only marginally well-educated and lower Middle Class to poor. It mainly pops up in isolated populations – small towns or rural. This Oath Keepers group may not be violent, but we have others in this country who are. The Branch Davidians are one example that comes to mind. Talk radio shows are full of their conspiracy theories. I still want to see the Oath Keepers out of Ferguson and away from demonstration scenes such as this one. We don’t need a bunch of automatic rifles and wannabe soldiers in such a situation.






http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/08/11/431605131/attention-trump-some-cultures-treat-menstruation-with-respect

Some Cultures Treat Menstruation With Respect
Susan Brink
August 11, 2015

Photograph -- Schoolgirls in Ethiopia examine a new feminine product: underwear with a pocket for a menstrual pad.

When Donald Trump said that Fox News host Megyn Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever," he showed that cultural taboos and biological misconceptions about female menstruation die hard. Trump later denied implying that Kelly asked him unfair questions in the first Republican presidential debate because she was having her period, but rather said he was referring to blood coming out of her nose.

His original comment — made at a time when women are running corporations, countries and for U.S. president — caused a public furor. It sounded curiously like an echo from 50 years ago, when Western women began entering the workforce in droves even as many men in power — and some women, like conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly — insisted that females were hormonally ill-suited for positions of authority.

Indeed, it's hard to find a society, a religion or a part of the world that does not find some way to make women feel dirty, guilty, unworthy or dangerous because of their monthly cycle. "Menstrual taboos are so widespread, they're almost a cultural universal," says Beverly Strassmann, evolutionary anthropologist and biologist at the University of Michigan who studies menstrual taboos.

Yet there are exceptions: societies that treat menstruating women with respect.

The negative associations with menstruation are well-known. Women may be prohibited from sexual intercourse, banned from places of worship or segregated in special huts. Various theories about the widespread prohibitions and restrictions range from false beliefs that menstrual blood carries toxic bacteria to fears that the blood triggers castration anxiety in men to beliefs that the smell of the blood disturbs animals and interferes with hunting.

But some cultures have a different attitude. In societies where women might have their period only every two years or so because of frequent pregnancies and long breastfeeding, there might be fewer negative associations with menstruation, says Alma Gottlieb, professor of anthropology and gender and women's studies at the University of Illinois and author of Blood Magic: The Anthropology of Menstruation.

"Yurok, a native tribe from the northwest coast of the United States stratified by class, had a group of aristocratic women who saw their periods as a time for purifying themselves," she says. As many women living in close proximity do, this group had their periods at the same time each month. "They were on a shared menstrual cycle and did a series of rituals during the cycle that they said was a period of their most heightened spiritual experience."

The Rungus women from Borneo, she says, are pretty blasé about their periods. "They don't say it's pure, they don't say it's polluting," says Gottlieb. "It's just a bodily fluid that needs to be evacuated. They don't make a big deal of it."

People Are Finally Talking About The Thing Nobody Wants To Talk About

Among the Ulithi women of the South Pacific, she says, breastfeeding women join menstruating women in huts, along with their children. "It's kind of a party atmosphere." The huts can be a torturous experience for women in some places, but "there are many other variations on the theme," she says.

In some parts of Ghana, West Africa, young girls sit under beautiful, ceremonial umbrellas when they begin menstruating. "The family would give her gifts and pay her homage," says Gottlieb. "She is celebrated like a queen."

For the Beng women of Ivory Coast, Gottlieb found that male-imposed restrictions on menstruating women come with a more positive twist. "An older man, a religious leader in the local religion, told me menstruation is like the flower of a tree. You need the flower before the tree can fruit," she says. "That's a very different ideology than the ideology of sin, dirt, pollution."




“His original comment — made at a time when women are running corporations, countries and for U.S. president — caused a public furor. It sounded curiously like an echo from 50 years ago, when Western women began entering the workforce in droves even as many men in power — and some women, like conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly — insisted that females were hormonally ill-suited for positions of authority. …. "Menstrual taboos are so widespread, they're almost a cultural universal," says Beverly Strassmann, evolutionary anthropologist and biologist at the University of Michigan who studies menstrual taboos. Yet there are exceptions: societies that treat menstruating women with respect. …. The Rungus women from Borneo, she says, are pretty blasé about their periods. "They don't say it's pure, they don't say it's polluting," says Gottlieb. "It's just a bodily fluid that needs to be evacuated. They don't make a big deal of it." …. Among the Ulithi women of the South Pacific, she says, breastfeeding women join menstruating women in huts, along with their children. "It's kind of a party atmosphere." …. In some parts of Ghana, West Africa, young girls sit under beautiful, ceremonial umbrellas when they begin menstruating. "The family would give her gifts and pay her homage," says Gottlieb. "She is celebrated like a queen." …. For the Beng women of Ivory Coast, Gottlieb found that male-imposed restrictions on menstruating women come with a more positive twist. "An older man, a religious leader in the local religion, told me menstruation is like the flower of a tree. You need the flower before the tree can fruit," she says. "That's a very different ideology than the ideology of sin, dirt, pollution."

When I took an anthropology course at UNC I discovered that there were, at least 50 years ago when I was studying there, tribes which CLAIMED that they didn’t realize sexual intercourse was the cause of pregnancy. I am glad to see that these Beng people at least understand the cause and effect of our sexual natures as men and women. As for people thinking it is unclean, well if women don’t wash, it is. If they do, it’s just a week out of the month when the woman will have some pain and have to wear special clothing. Women’s fertility in prehistoric settings, as evidenced by cave drawings and “Venus figurines,” was a part of their religion. The Women’s Liberation Movement in Western cultures was a period when women talked among themselves about subjects that in the past were taboo. When my mother was young there were some mothers who believed that if a girl was aware of the facts of life she would be more likely to engage in sex before marriage. As a result they didn’t warn a girl about what was going to happen to her from her menstrual periods to the sex act itself. That to me is cruel. I am so glad to have come along in modern times when there are tampons, birth control, and Physical Education in all high schools when the young teens of both sexes were told what was ahead for them. Some Fundamentalists don’t believe in sex education in schools, but to me it is crucial. Parents are sometimes too “shy” about sexuality to tell their sons and daughters what is what. Girls especially need to know precisely what causes pregnancy, or they well may get involved with a boy – it is very natural, of course – and go that one tiny step too far.

As for women being “hormonally ill-suited for positions of authority” that is pure bunk. Men just want to be the only ones in a position of power, so they join in these primitive beliefs about women. Donald Trump said a very similarly antifeminist comment a few weeks ago against a woman news reporter. I think he really doesn’t like women.

See the following clip from Detroit Free Press: http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/30/donald-trump-breastfeeding-lawyer/30874945/, “Trump to breastfeeding mom: 'You're disgusting'”

“The New York Times has pored over hundreds of pages of Donald Trump testimony from his many lawsuits over the last decade and found a lot of what it describes as "hyperbolic overstatements" and "outright misstatements," as well as some instances of truly obnoxious behavior — like the time he told a lawyer who wanted to take a break to pump breast milk that she was "disgusting."

That happened during a 2011 hearing in a Florida real estate case, the Times reports, when lawyer Elizabeth Beck asked for a medical break to pump milk for her 3-month-old daughter, holding up the pump to make a point when the Trump team objected. "You're disgusting," Trump said, per the Times, and walked out of the room, ending proceedings for the day.

Trump lawyer Alan Garten doesn't dispute the events, but he tells the Times that "disgusting" wasn't a statement on breastfeeding — it was on Beck displaying the pump.

"In my 20 years of legal practice, I've never seen more bizarre behavior at a deposition," the lawyer says. "That is what led to his remark."

Another Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen, has apologized for falsely claiming that "by the very definition, you can't rape your spouse."

He tells CNN that the remark was made in a "moment of shock and anger" when a Daily Beast reporter brought up a decades-old allegation. The Trump campaign tells CNN that Trump "didn't know of his comments but disagrees with them" and that Cohen is a Trump corporate employee not affiliated in any way with the campaign.”