January 13, 2016


News Clips For The Day


http://www.attn.com/stories/5122/oregon-militiamen-access-federal-data

Militiamen Are Going Through Federal Data In Oregon Building
Sipa via AP Images
JUSTICE

RELATED: TWITTER IS TROLLING THE OREGON MILITIA MEN WITH HASHTAGS
RELATED: AMMON BUNDY'S TWITTER ACCOUNT IS PROBABLY NOT AMMON BUNDY
RELATED: 3 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE CRISIS IN OREGON RIGHT NOW
Photograph -- Ryan Bundy sits near a bank of computers in a government-owned building, OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING - OPB.ORG
Photograph -- ammon-bundy, AP/RICK BOWMER - APIMAGES.COM
RELATED: WHY OREGON OFFICIALS AREN'T RUSHING TO STOP THE ARMED MILITIAMEN

Note – OPB is Oregon Public Broadcasting
Note: See January 4 for Cliven Bundy and Finicum

Militiamen just outside of Burns, Oregon are making their boldest moves yet since illegally occupying the Malheur Wildlife National Refuge last week, trolling through federal documents there, and destroying fencing installed by the federal government.

Leaders of the small band of armed anti-government protesters said that the documents would be used to "expose" discrimination by the government against local ranchers, who use federally-held land to let livestock graze.

Like the group's occupation of the federal building, going through federal documents without license to do so is ostensibly illegal. The anti-government group's ability to access U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees' personal information is also a concern.

Militiamen showed up last week to protest the federal prosecution of two local ranchers, Dwight and Steve Hammond, who were accused of burning federal land.

"We have looked through documents, mainly looking for discrimination against the Hammonds. That's what we're looking for, and we have found several different things," Ammon Bundy, a leader and spokesperson for the group told ATTN: in a phone interview late Monday.

Bundy alleges that the group had found evidence showing the deliberate denial of and meddling with grazing permits for the Hammonds, evidence he claims "just confirm[s] a lot of the vindictive [government] behaviors that the Hammonds have been talking about, like actually solid evidence."

Bundy also claims that the documents were obtained without accessing a bank of computers inside one of the occupied buildings. However, a reporter from Oregon Public Broadcasting on the scene saw at least three computers turned on. OPB reports:

"There are four desks in the office, two on each side. Three of the computers were turned on, and in screen saver mode. Papers in the room were strewn about in a disorderly manner.

"After Finicum realized he shouldn’t have allowed OPB to access the room, he quickly picked up lists of names and Social Security numbers by the computers, and hid government employee ID cards that were previously in plain sight."

Bundy, however, reiterated to ATTN: that the group had not accessed government computers, saying that they "made a promise at the beginning that we would not turn the computers on until the time was right, and that the personal information on those computers would be kept secure."

"We've kept that promise," he added. He explained away the OPB account by saying the groups' personal computers were on and placed on the same desk.

Law enforcement and federal employees voiced concern over the personal information that could have been accessed by the militiamen, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the refuge, instructed some of its employees to temporarily relocate from their homes.

"There is not a stated threat," an agency source told KOIN 6 News.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been in close communication and planning with its employees to ensure that they and their families remain safe," agency spokeswoman Megan Nagel said.

The agency and the Harney County Sheriff's office urged caution after employees reported people from outside the small Burns community slowly driving past their homes, or approaching them at grocery stores. ATTN: reached out to the agency, but a representative could not be reached before publishing this article.

The militiamen have repeatedly said they are not seeking any violent engagement with law enforcement, and that they take issue with Bureau of Land Management policies regarding control of federal land there — not necessarily with local control.

Still, the group made what is its boldest move yet, since occupying the buildings in the first place: they used their own equipment to destroy fencing installed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The group said the removal would help a local ranching family by giving its cattle more room to graze.

The Fish and Wildlife service condemned the fence removal in a statement, calling the action "trespassing" and "unlawful." "In the century of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge's existence, enormous effort has been displayed by partners, surrounding communities, ranchers and landowners to restore a devastated landscape," the statement reads.

Asked what he thought about federal agencies condemning the group's wire cutting, Bundy said they had complaints of their own.

"Well they've condemned us for a lot of things," he said, "but we condemn them for building it in the first place; they should not be cutting ranchers' ranges off."



So Bundy and crew are not only taking little care of the property and damaging it when they feel like it, they are snooping into citizens’ financial matters. I do hope the federal government is not dragging its’ feet out of fear of the militias which it has allowed to maintain dangerous arsenals to “protect themselves” from “the gummint,” but rather just hasn’t come up with an effective way to dislodge the interlopers. I’m tempted to call them animals, but they are actually only homo sapiens making a power grab, which is some people’s favorite thing to do. The Tea Party and perhaps some Democrats who have been elected using Koch Brothers money, are of course enabling them. The NRA loves them to pieces. An article from several days ago said that the very family whom Bundy is supposedly “helping” have stated that they don’t want them there. They want to raise their cattle in peace instead. It’s a sad and sickening situation. In my opinion if you really believe in law and order, you can’t possibly support what Bundy et al. are up to.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-there-was-no-apology-to-iranians-over-navy-boat/

Biden: Iran didn't want or get apology for boats incident
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
January 13, 2016

Play VIDEO -- Clinton on State of the Union, Sanders' surge in polls
Photograph -- ussailorsiranap689764778369.jpg, This picture released by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Jan. 13, 2016, shows detained American Navy sailors in an undisclosed location in Iran. AP


After Iran released 10 U.S. Navy sailors from custody early Wednesday morning, some media outlets reported that the U.S. had issued an apology to Tehran in order to secure the sailors' freedom. But Vice President Joe Biden told CBS News that there was "no apology" given.

"When you have a problem with the boat, (do) you apologize the boat had a problem? No," Biden said in an interview with "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday. "And there was no looking for any apology. This was just standard nautical practice."

The vice president explained that the "the Iranians picked up both boats -- as we have picked up Iranian boats that needed to be rescued." Iranian officials then "realized they were there in distress and said they would release them, and released them -- like ordinary nations would do."

He added that situations like the capture of the two U.S. Navy boats were exactly "why it's important to have channels open" with the Middle East power. That sentiment was echoed by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who tweeted Wednesday a message about the importance of diplomacy and "respect."

With the Iran nuclear deal on the line, other U.S. officials also seemed to take a distinctively conciliatory tone in discussing the incident.

Defense chief Ash Carter issued a statement thanking Secretary of State John Kerry "for his diplomatic engagement with Iran to secure our sailors' swift return."

"Around the world, the U.S. Navy routinely provides assistance to foreign sailors in distress, and we appreciate the timely way in which this situation was resolved," Carter said.

In a speech at the National Defense University in Washington Wednesday morning, Kerry thanked Iranian authorities for their cooperation and quick response.

"All indications suggest or tell us that our sailors were well taken care of, provided with blankets and food and assisted with their return to the fleet earlier today," Kerry said, "and I think we can all imagine how a similar situation might have played out three or four years ago, and in fact it is clear that today this kind of issue was able to be peacefully resolved and officially resolved, and that is a testament to the critical role that diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure and strong."

U.S. officials were quick to assure the nation Tuesday, as the circumstances of the U.S. sailors' detention unfolded, that Iran had indicated the boats' crews and the vessels themselves would be returned quickly.

Iran is expected to satisfy the terms of last summer's landmark nuclear deal within a matter of days. Once the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, independently confirms that Iran has rolled back its program in line with the terms of the agreement, the U.S. and its allies will have to suspend a raft of oil and financial sanctions against Tehran. The economic sanctions have crippled Iran's economy for years.

Biden also weighed in on the Democratic primary race, discussing a comment he made this week that front-runner Hillary Clinton was "relatively new" to the issue of income inequality.

He defended his comments, saying the context of his quote was "reshaped" in the reporting.

"Hillary has been secretary of state for almost five years before she ran for office," the vice president said Wednesday, pointing out that her focus before then had also been national security issues. However, he called income inequality Sanders' "wheelhouse," adding that "Bernie has has [sic] been doing the same speech for the last 30 years" and "literally he's never changed his position."

He added that some of Clinton's policies on the middle class are "very, very proactive" and that "she's moving in the right direction."

Just hours after President Obama's final State of the Union address, Biden also defended the president's speech.

He named America "by far and away the healthiest economy" and said that there was "no question, no question we are the most respected, powerful nation in the world," referencing a much-criticized claim from the president Tuesday night.

Biden acknowledged, however, that there was "understandable frustration" with domestic problems like income disparity and wage stagnation.

Of the president's announcement that Biden would lead a new initiative to fight for a cancer cure, the vice president said that various researchers "need someone to sort of be an organizer."

"We are so close to so many potential cures," he added. Biden's son, Beau, died of brain cancer last May.



“… some media outlets reported that the U.S. had issued an apology to Tehran in order to secure the sailors' freedom. But Vice President Joe Biden told CBS News that there was "no apology" given. "When you have a problem with the boat, (do) you apologize the boat had a problem? No," Biden said in an interview with "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday. "And there was no looking for any apology. This was just standard nautical practice." …. He added that situations like the capture of the two U.S. Navy boats were exactly "why it's important to have channels open" with the Middle East power. That sentiment was echoed by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who tweeted Wednesday a message about the importance of diplomacy and "respect." …. "Around the world, the U.S. Navy routinely provides assistance to foreign sailors in distress, and we appreciate the timely way in which this situation was resolved," Carter said. …. Biden also weighed in on the Democratic primary race, discussing a comment he made this week that front-runner Hillary Clinton was "relatively new" to the issue of income inequality. …. "Hillary has been secretary of state for almost five years before she ran for office," the vice president said Wednesday, pointing out that her focus before then had also been national security issues. However, he called income inequality Sanders' "wheelhouse," adding that "Bernie has has [sic] been doing the same speech for the last 30 years" and "literally he's never changed his position." He added that some of Clinton's policies on the middle class are "very, very proactive" and that "she's moving in the right direction."


www.stuff.co.nz/.../iran-gets-an-apology-after-holding-crew-of-...; www.telegraph.co.uk › ... › Middle East › Iran;


I see two Republican legislators did claim that Obama should have mentioned the incident in his State of the Union message, and the Wall Street Journal reported that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps did claim a US apology was given, but all other sources say it didn’t happen. The conservatives stated their talking point that a more hardline relationship with Iran, and above all if we had not signed the nuclear agreement, that Iran would not have detained the men out of fear. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The following article from the Telegraph disputes the claim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/12096275/Iran-holds-two-US-Navy-boats-in-Persian-Gulf.html reports that British navy personnel were taken by Iran in a similar incident in 2007 with considerably rougher treatment. That article says, “• The British personnel were held in separate cells, robbed, blindfolded and aggressively interrogated … • After 12 days of captivity, they were released in a high profile ceremony designed to cause maximum embarrassment to Britain … • Iran never returned the captured patrol boats. …. Mr Kerry spent scores of hours negotiating the nuclear agreement last year with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister. The two men spoke immediately after the US personnel went missing. Mr Zarif said he was “happy to see dialogue and respect, not threats and impetuousness, swiftly resolved sailors episode.” Makes good sense to me!


The Republicans have acted as though Obama was trying to hide the incident, or debased our country by issuing "an apology." They have complained about presidential apologies several times in the past -- apologizing to black citizens for slavery, for instance. I think that has helped to improve the human interactions, and is an important part of the way we should do things. There is no evidence, as far as the articles I was able to find, that Kerry/Obama knelt on bended knee and begged for the sailors' freedom; but rather that both parties acted within a framework of proper behavior and achieved a speedy and free-hearted solution to the problem. This is one of those ginned up political campaign issues that is totally baseless and disgusting.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/omalley-criticizes-no-labels-for-allowing-trump-to-accept-pledge/

Martin O'Malley criticizes No Labels over Donald Trump
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
January 11, 2016

Photograph -- Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Governor Martin O'Malley speaks at the Central Iowa Democrats Fall Barbecue in Ames, Iowa November 15, 2015. REUTERS/Mark Kauzlarich REUTERS


Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) on Monday criticized No Labels for allowing Donald Trump to accept the group's "problem solver promise."

Speaking to the No Labels Problem Solver event in Manchester, New Hampshire, the Democratic presidential candidate said he appreciated taking the "promise" label himself but questioned how Trump could qualify, given his provocative statements.

"Quite honestly, I think that you are watering down and dumbing down your problem solver label when you bestow it on someone like Donald Trump," O'Malley said, drawing applause from the audience.

"When Donald Trump says things like all Mexicans are rapists and murderers, that's not being a leader. That's not solving problems. There's other adjectives for that -- one of them being racist," O'Malley added. "When Donald Trump says things like we should issue ID cards to all American Muslims, that's not bringing people together. That's not solving problems. That's making a fascist appeal. So I would encourage you not to dumb down this label.

On Monday, the group announced that six presidential candidates had accepted the group's "promise:" O'Malley, Trump, Ben Carson, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Chris Christie.

Accepting the "problem solver promise" would require the candidates, if elected, to work toward creating 25 million new jobs in 10 years, securing Social Security and Medicare for 75 years, balancing the budget by 2030 and making the U.S. energy independent by 2024.

It also requires the candidate to promise to act within the first 30 days in office to work on at least one of the four goals.

No Labels is a non-partisan organization co-chaired by former Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R). It was created after the 2010 midterm elections to foster bipartisanship.

"Regardless of what one's platform happens to be, in the end, these candidates and somebody who becomes the next president of the United States is going to have to work with Republicans and Democrats and break that impenetrable partisan divide in order to deliver things for the American people," Huntsman said in a video explaining the group's agenda.

No Labels says it doesn't endorse candidates.



"When Donald Trump says things like all Mexicans are rapists and murderers, that's not being a leader. That's not solving problems. There's other adjectives for that -- one of them being racist," O'Malley added. "When Donald Trump says things like we should issue ID cards to all American Muslims, that's not bringing people together. That's not solving problems. That's making a fascist appeal. So I would encourage you not to dumb down this label. It also requires the candidate to promise to act within the first 30 days in office to work on at least one of the four goals. .… Monday, the group announced that six presidential candidates had accepted the group's "promise:" O'Malley, Trump, Ben Carson, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Chris Christie. Accepting the "problem solver promise" would require the candidates, if elected, to work toward creating 25 million new jobs in 10 years, securing Social Security and Medicare for 75 years, balancing the budget by 2030 and making the U.S. energy independent by 2024.”

On the surface, No Labels sounds promising, but if they accept candidates who have publically espoused such views as Trump has, I agree with O’Malley that they aren’t solving the problems or trying to address the cause of justice. Too often when the Lieberman coalitions in the past have pledged to break down the deadlocks in Congress and the Senate, the result has been aimed toward helping Republicans rather than Democrats. That’s not “No Label.” It’s Republican.


SOCIAL ISSUES


http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/jacksonville-city-council-hears-debate-over-potent/np4C7/

Jacksonville City Council hears debate over potential expansion of Human Rights Ordinance
By Catherine Varnum
Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2016


JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The line was long outside city council chambers as people filed in well before the 5 p.m. meeting. Inside the chamber was standing room only as people on both sides of the Human Rights Ordinance sat side by side, waiting to speak before council.

“They have the same rights I have,” said Virginia Ackerman.

“I’m transgender and I’d look grossly out of place in a men’s room. It’s not about men in dresses, it’s about people’s identity,” said supporter Monica Depaul.

For weeks, Mayor Lenny Curry has hosted community events listening to both sides of the issue. The proposal includes extending rights to the LGBT community. Supporters say its needed to keep Jacksonville competitive.

“Look at the number of businesses that want this to pass. It’s clear this is a big selling point if it does pass,” said Depaul.

“They have no right to put laws on the books that are gonna discriminate against me,” said Ackerman.

Now it will be up to council to decide. The vote failed in 2012, but with a mostly new City Council, some hope this time will be different. Right now there are two proposals, one saying council should make the decision.

The second says voters should decide. While the two proposals are pending, some new council members we spoke to aren’t ready to say how they’ll vote just yet.

“I’m looking forward to hearing more about why (City Councilman Bill) Gulliford believes it should be from the voters, and then I’ll make a decision,” said Councilwoman Anna Broche.

“I’ll make a decision after public comment,” said Councilman Scott Wilson.

City leaders are going to hold three meetings on this with the full council before taking a vote. They start in February.

- See more at: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/jacksonville-city-council-hears-debate-over-potent/np4C7/#sthash.dq3x59LW.dpuf



“The line was long outside city council chambers as people filed in well before the 5 p.m. meeting. Inside the chamber was standing room only as people on both sides of the Human Rights Ordinance sat side by side, waiting to speak before council. …. For weeks, Mayor Lenny Curry has hosted community events listening to both sides of the issue. The proposal includes extending rights to the LGBT community. Supporters say its needed to keep Jacksonville competitive. …. Right now there are two proposals, one saying council should make the decision. The second says voters should decide. While the two proposals are pending, some new council members we spoke to aren’t ready to say how they’ll vote just yet. …. City leaders are going to hold three meetings on this with the full council before taking a vote. They start in February.”


I really love living in Jacksonville, but on right leaning viewpoints, the population here is pretty conservative. They’re moving up, though. Just recently the school board voted to change the name of a high school here which was named for a famous KKK leader. This is still the deep South, but it has a large and diverse population who don’t all go to the Baptist Church, four well respected colleges, plus enough businesses to keep most people employed. There have been some incidents between blacks and police, but none that I recall like the hardcore abuse cases from Ferguson and some other cities. Though the City Council voted a similar measure down in 2012, I have hopes that this new one will pass.



https://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/13/1383179/-The-absent-black-father-myth-debunked-by-CDC

The absent black father myth—debunked by CDC
May 13, 2015 4:47pm EDT by Frank Vyan Walton

For statistical graphics, go to dailykos website -- http://images.dailykos.com/images/142188/large/black-fatherhood.png?1431025883, KidCount Datacenter, Census Bureau on Children Living.

We've been told, quite frequently and repeatedly that the problems in the black community that we've seen in Ferguson and Baltimore recently are not the fault of biased, paramilitary, paranoid and violent policing (even if the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that black people are three times more likely to be subject to law enforcement uses of force). They are not the fault of racist red-lining that created these impoverished neighborhoods in the first place. They are not the fault of bigoted lending and hiring practices that create roadblocks for those attempting to escape those neighborhoods. And the fact that black students are disciplined, suspended and expelled far more easily and quickly for the same or lesser offenses, isn't the problem.

None of that is the problem. Nope. All of that is just too bad. Life is tough all over. Lots of people have got lots of problems. No, instead we've heard that the welfare benefits in Baltimore are "too lucrative," because when you give people nothing they somehow get more, somewhere. That businesses won't invest in these neighborhoods until something is done about those darn teachers unions. That it's because of "too many gay marriages." That ISIS is using Baltimore to recruit blacks. And, of course, when all else fails, blame Obama.

But what we've heard the most, is that the real problem is the Breakdown in the Black Family™. That too many black fathers have abandoned their children, allowing them to be raised by the streets like feral cats. They don't learn morals, and they don't learn values—so naturally police have to shoot them down like rabid, foaming dogs. Even when they're unarmed. Even when they have their backs turned and are simply running away. It's all just their own fault really.

If only black fathers would spend as much time and energy on their kids as white fathers do. If only...

Well, someone—the Centers for Disease Control—actually went to trouble of checking just how involved in their lives all fathers are, whether or not they are married to the mother of their children or live with them. What they found was that, in reality, black fathers are actually more attentive to their children than other fathers generally are.

Some of the relevant highlights from the CDC study as posted at Think Progress.

Considering the fact that “black fatherhood” is a phrase that is almost always accompanied by the word “crisis” in U.S. society, it’s understandable that the CDC’s results seem innovative. But in reality, the new data builds upon years of research that’s concluded that hands-on parenting is similar among dads of all races. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to bust this racially-biased myth. [...]

Although black fathers are more likely to live separately from their children—the statistic that’s usually trotted out to prove the parenting “crisis”—many of them remain just as involved in their kids’ lives. Pew estimates that 67 percent of black dads who don’t live with their kids see them at least once a month, compared to 59 percent of white dads and just 32 percent of Hispanic dads.

And there’s compelling evidence that number of black dads living apart from their kids stems from structural systems of inequality and poverty, not the unfounded assumption that African-American men somehow place less value on parenting. Equal numbers of black dads and white dads tend to agree that it’s important to be a father who provides emotional support, discipline, and moral guidance. There’s one area of divergence in the way the two groups approach their parental responsibilities: Black dads are even more likely to think it’s important to financially provide for their children.

So, of course, parents should be involved in the lives of their children. Of course they should help guide them, give them a sense of morality, goals and direction. But that doesn't require that the father necessarily be married to the mother. People like Donald Trump have certainly made that obvious. The nuclear family myth has long ago been blown into small dust-like bits. Many of us live in extended and blended house-holds within which we've all learned to adapt, and function and even thrive.

Perhaps it's time we stopped flogging the simplistic notion that all that truly plagues the black community is a lack of weddings.

12:03 PM PT: To be fair and complete, as pointed out in the comments, there is a significant difference in the rate of single-parent families across racial lines as this chart from the KidCount Datacenter.

However this is actually the rate of marriages across racial groups and not a direction correlation to the percentage of those who are living with, or living apart from their children as noted in the CDC report.

Definitions: Children under age 18 who live with their own single parent either in a family or subfamily.

In this definition, single-parent families may include cohabiting couples and do not include children living with married stepparents. Children who live in group quarters (for example, institutions, dormitories, or group homes) are not included in this calculation.

This really a difference in the rate of marriages, so it is isn't really a perfect correlation for those living with, or apart, from their children.

Here's a couple snap shots from the Census Bureau on Children Living with a single or both parents regardless of marriage.

These do show a difference in the percentage of children living with one parent (the mother only) vs two parents between White (18%), Latino or Hispanic (24%) and Black (50%) households. But what's interesting is the percentage who live with their father only (White - 3.8%, Hispanic - 3.0%, Black - 4.3%) is also higher.

Does this invalidate the CDC analysis? Well, no. There is a lower marriage rate among black people and that does seem to have an effect on how many of them are living with vs living apart from their children. But the level of involvement, of parenting, across racial lines from men in either of those two living situations - is not that significantly different. In fact, more Black fathers who live apart from their children are in most measurements are actually far more involved in their children's lives [in some cases by nearly a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio] which may be a direct result, and/or offset, to the fact that far more of them are in that situation percentage-wise.

5:11 PM PT: Couple more thoughts:

One of the problems with the assumption that a Nuclear Family is the "best" family for raising children is the reality that not all biological parents provide the best guidance, example, or have the best of relationship with each other. Things can turn abusive, violent and sometimes deadly. Quite often the weapons used in this disputes, is a gun.

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.2

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.4
A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.5 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.6

So that's one reason why some moms and dads shouldn't live together.
Another factor on the "Nuclear Family" ideas is the fact that many of these studies don't take into account the impact of the extended family, grand-parents, uncles, aunts, older siblings and cousins can have on the child-rearing processes. Parenting sometimes takes more than just the actual parents themselves, particular when both of them need to work to make end-meet, and there are other day-care and babysitting issues that need to be addressed. Two out of our last three serving Presidents were raised in single-parent homes with the support of extended family, so clearly - it's not hopeless.

Lastly it strikes me that there can be inherent problems at looking at an internal proportional number, when the external proportion may be at an far larger differential. To wit: there are almost five times as many White people in America as they are Black. So if you were to take the single-parent percentages for each and multiply them against the numbers of actual children involved what you would see is this:

Hispanic Children in Single-Parent Households: 28.6% x 16.3 Million = 4.66 Million

Black Children in Single-Parent Households: 54.7% x 11.2 Million = 6.12 Million.

[Corrected] White Children in Single-Parent Households: 22.1% x 55.9 Million = 12.3 Million.

So even with an almost twice as high internal percentage of single-parent households, the external percentage is that there are still only one third one half as many black children living in that situation as there are white, and when you add this greater quantity of white "at risk" youth to the CDC data it seems that the quality of some of that white parenting may not be quite a strong.

But we don't really hear much about the single-parenting crisis of absent White Fathers, now do we? And we don't see our jails filled to the brim with the failed results of these millions of white single-parent households even with a 3:1 gap in actual numbers, instead we see it filled far more frequently, with black men who afterward can't really be good, attentive Fathers anymore, now can they? Perhaps that is the source for the internal percentage differential in the first place.

Wed May 13, 2015 at 1:26 PM PT: I've gotten some pushback on twitter claiming I have failed to "debunk" the Black Father Myth. Well, part of the point of a myth is that it itself isn't really "proven" in the first place. For example even some of the links provided by naysayers in the comments don't necessary make that case when describing the better outcomes that are typically associated with the children of married couples.

Is it simply because they have, on average, higher family incomes? (Two earners are better than one, and one household is cheaper to run than two.) Or are two committed spouses better able to provide consistent parenting? Is it marriage itself that matters, or is marriage the visible expression of other factors, that are the true cause of different outcomes? And if so, which ones?

It is usually using the disparity in marriage rates among the races that people usually draw the conclusion that there is a "crisis" in black families, and that their [sic] is a deficit in black fathers. Those numbers as I previously showed in my first update are as follows:

White Single Families: 25%

Hispanic Single Families: 42%

Black Single Families: 67%

People usually look at these numbers alone and go "Aha, there's your problem", but I think this is a gross oversimplification of far more complex real life situations. I showed this in the second part of that update when I noted that not being married doesn't really mean that the parent is "absent" as a good percentage of families may live together but remain unmarried.

Single Parent Living Arrangements

White 22.1%

Hispanic 28.6%

Black 54.7%

So as you can see although the figures don't change much from married White couples with children to cohabiting but unmarried parents, it drops 14% for Hispanics and 13% for Blacks. Another issue I addressed in the 2nd update which rarely addressed by those who fault marriages alone as being the big problem with Black child-rearing is the issue of blended families. There are many cases which the married/unmarried statistic fail to address when the mother may not be living with or married to the father, but is instead living with and/or married to someone else.

There are no recent estimates on the percentage of children residing in blended families.

….

To date, government reporting of population figures indicate families in which the child resides. So if the child lives with a divorced, single parent and the other nonresident parent has remarried, the child is not included in the calculations as being a member of a blended family.

Estimates suggest that many children living in a "single parent household" (as designated by the Census Bureau) are actually living with two adults. Thus, their best estimates indicate that about 25% of current blended families are actually cohabiting couples.

And...

40% of married couples with children (i.e., families) in the US are stepcouples (at least one partner had a child from a previous relationship before marriage; this includes full and part-time residential stepfamilies and those with children under and/or over the age of 18). The percentage of all married couple households is 35%. (Karney, Garvan, & Thomas, 2003)

All of this means that the census bureau's data of "living arrangements" can be off by as much as 25% when dealing with blended families situations and even their much lower figures of Hispanic and Black single parent living arrangements could in fact be far, far lower than shown.

So the bottom line issue, once we get back to the CDC figures on how much fathers across the various races actually do the real working of parenting rather than just being nearby or within the same house - can we definitively say that qualitative difference proportionally overwhelms the quantitative [but grossly incomplete] data that proponents of the "Black Fathers Suck" faction seem to espouse?

I don't know.

Frankly, because the data is incomplete and there isn't as far as I can tell a breakdown of blended families by race, I honestly can't tell. And that's why I didn't get into this subject in more detail earlier, it'a [sic] a wash. But the incompleteness of the data also shows that absent Black Fathers Myth, isn't proven either. In fact without full, complete, and accurate numbers - it can't be proven.

However, what the CDC info does show is that pound for pound, on a family by family average basis Black fathers are generally more attentive to their children whether the live with them or apart from them, and even using the Census Bureau numbers there are far more White Children "at risk" from their less attentive and absent fathers than there are Black. Shouldn't that be the larger concern if missing fathers truly are the "crisis" some people claim it is?



“But what we've heard the most, is that the real problem is the Breakdown in the Black Family™. …. Is it simply because they have, on average, higher family incomes? (Two earners are better than one, and one household is cheaper to run than two.) Or are two committed spouses better able to provide consistent parenting? Is it marriage itself that matters, or is marriage the visible expression of other factors, that are the true cause of different outcomes? And if so, which ones? It is usually using the disparity in marriage rates among the races that people usually draw the conclusion that there is a "crisis" in black families, and that their [sic] is a deficit in black fathers. …. So the bottom line issue, once we get back to the CDC figures on how much fathers across the various races actually do the real working of parenting rather than just being nearby or within the same house - can we definitively say that qualitative difference proportionally overwhelms the quantitative [but grossly incomplete] data that proponents of the "Black Fathers Suck" faction seem to espouse? …. But the incompleteness of the data also shows that absent Black Fathers Myth, isn't proven either. In fact without full, complete, and accurate numbers - it can't be proven. However, what the CDC info does show is that pound for pound, on a family by family average basis Black fathers are generally more attentive to their children whether they live with them or apart from them, and even using the Census Bureau numbers there are far more White Children "at risk" from their less attentive and absent fathers than there are Black. Shouldn't that be the larger concern if missing fathers truly are the "crisis" some people claim it is?”


I believe that the main cause of poorly reared and educated black children is the numerous depressing factors such as very bad housing, poor nutrition, lack of parental education, the fact that the responsible parent can’t work and provide childcare at the same time, poor discipline and a lack of positive social training, sometimes a lack of warm and loving attention, lack of medical care, dangerous neighborhoods, bad influences in the form of drugs or gangs, too many community adults in prison or jail, fear and distrust of “the law” and other things which I haven’t thought of due to the fact that I have never been a poor black woman rearing children. This article does a very good job of proving that simplistic moralistic thinking not only will not solve the problems, it will make them worse. Many of the things that are problems in all ethnic communities are the product of a public philosophy of benign neglect -- or not so benign. We in the US need to do better on this matter in every way. Some of us care about the matter, but too many simply don’t. Comfortable and secure individuals tend to be complaisant. All they care about is making more money and spending it on themselves. If this sounds cynical, I apologize. It comes to me from the evidence of my eyes.



http://news.yahoo.com/air-strike-iraqs-mosul-targets-millions-cash-us-203832907.html

Air strike in Iraq's Mosul targets 'millions' in IS cash: US official
AFP
January 11, 2016


Washington (AFP) - A US-led coalition air strike has destroyed a cash storage facility used by Islamic State jihadists in the Iraqi city of Mosul, a US defense official said Monday.

Two 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) bombs struck the facility, destroying "millions" of dollars worth of cash, the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"We estimate in the millions of dollars... from all their illicit stuff: oil, looting, extortion," the official said. The strike came early Monday.

CNN, which first reported the strike, said the US military believed between five and seven civilians had been killed.

The US-led coalition carrying out plane and drone strikes against the IS group in Iraq and Syria has been increasingly targeting the jihadists' money-making capabilities, including by bombing trucks that ferry illicit oil across Syria.

Under pressure from critics who say the campaign is moving too slowly, the Pentagon has indicated it would consider a wider array of targets even if these might cause civilian deaths, provided these attacks yield significant gains against the jihadists.

The defense official said the coalition had targeted cash-holding facilities once or twice in the past year, but the most recent action was "probably" the biggest to date.

It was not immediately clear if the money had been in US dollars, some other foreign currency, or local dinars, the official added.



“A US-led coalition air strike has destroyed a cash storage facility used by Islamic State jihadists in the Iraqi city of Mosul, a US defense official said Monday. Two 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) bombs struck the facility, destroying "millions" of dollars worth of cash, the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. …. CNN, which first reported the strike, said the US military believed between five and seven civilians had been killed. The US-led coalition carrying out plane and drone strikes against the IS group in Iraq and Syria has been increasingly targeting the jihadists' money-making capabilities, including by bombing trucks that ferry illicit oil across Syria. …. The defense official said the coalition had targeted cash-holding facilities once or twice in the past year, but the most recent action was "probably" the biggest to date.”


Even though the Obama administration probably did do this after some well-publicized goading by Republicans, it is the kind of move I would like to see, as opposed to bombing a city because ISIS is known to be there. To me, the more dangerous process of sending in soldiers and fighting door to door is the only appropriate way to handle those armed strongholds, if civilian lives are to be saved. There is a need for our side to be more aggressive than we have been. The size and strength of ISIS will continue to grow otherwise.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-poll-bernie-sanders-leads-every-major-voting-bloc/

NH Poll: Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in every major voting bloc
CBS NEWS
January 12, 2016

Campaign 2016 - CBS News -- Poll: Clinton, Sanders in virtual tie in Iowa, New Hampshire
Play VIDEO -- Clinton swipes at Sanders as Iowa caucuses approach


Bernie Sanders now leads Hillary Clinton by 14 points in New Hampshire, according to the latest Monmouth University Poll of likely New Hampshire voters who are likely to vote in the first-in-the-nation primary in February.

Fifty-three percent of these voters choose Sanders, compared to 39 percent for Clinton. And the new poll shows that Clinton has also lost her edge over Sanders among registered Democrats, women and older voters. Sanders has now surpassed her with these voters, while holding onto his lead among registered independents, men and younger voters.

Under New Hampshire's modified primary system, undeclared voters may vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary, although voters who are members of one of the parties cannot vote in the other party's primary. Clinton (42 percent) is now losing Democrats to Sanders (50 percent), compared to two months ago, when she led Sanders 57 percent - 35 percent.

A Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC poll out this week, however, showed a very different snapshot, with Clinton leading Sanders among voters who are Democrats by 18 points.

Among independents and new voters likely to take part in the primary, the Monmouth poll shows Sanders with a 58 percent - 34 percent advantage, similar to his 59 percent - 35 percent lead in November.

Fifty-two percent of these voters say they've settled on their choices, up from 35 percent two months ago. Sanders' supporters (55 percent) are a little more decisive than Clinton's (49 percent).

Sanders (50 percent) now leads Clinton (44 percent) among women voters, and he's holding his lead among men, 57 percent - 32 percent, similar to previous months. And voters under the age of 50 prefer Sanders, 58 percent - 30 percent. Older voters said in this survey they would support Sanders over Clinton by 50 percent to 44 percent. Two months ago, Clinton led this group 56 percent - 38 percent.

Half of New Hampshire Democrats feel that her husband, former President Bill Clinton can help his wife win, while 12 percent say his presence on the trail hurts her, and 32 percent say he'll have little impact.

The top issue for these Democrats is the economy and jobs (29 percent), followed by national security and terrorism (14 percent).

The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from January 7 to 10, 2016 with 413 New Hampshire voters likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. This sample has a margin of error of +4.8 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.



“Fifty-three percent of these voters choose Sanders, compared to 39 percent for Clinton. And the new poll shows that Clinton has also lost her edge over Sanders among registered Democrats, women and older voters. Sanders has now surpassed her with these voters, while holding onto his lead among registered independents, men and younger voters. …. Half of New Hampshire Democrats feel that her husband, former President Bill Clinton can help his wife win, while 12 percent say his presence on the trail hurts her, and 32 percent say he'll have little impact. …. The top issue for these Democrats is the economy and jobs (29 percent), followed by national security and terrorism (14 percent).”


I do wonder what the differences are between the Marist Poll and the others mentioned here are. It has surely come up with a very different result. The WSJ is one of its partners, and I have always heard that they are conservative in their leanings. I still think Sanders is winning, and that he is -- by quite a bit -- the better candidate. Bill Clinton was in when changes were made to favor Wall Street and banks in ways that have been damaging to the economy, especially to poor and Middle Class people. Folks thought that was a good idea at the time but it has turned out to be contributing to the 2008 Recession, which while not as severe as that of 1929, it has been felt severely by the poor, and quite a few who were formerly “Middle Class” are now poor. No job, no house. No house, no equity.

Many people now feel that he and too many other Democrats have been bought by the Koch Brothers and other essentially conservative interests, and are no longer representative of the less competitive groups in our society. I can’t help lumping Hillary into that same group with Bill. I believe Sanders has NOT been bought, and he has expressed several very interesting, bold and forward-looking ideas which can transform the balance of power between the billionaire club and the less wealthy – free in state tuition, for instance. Food and housing helps the poor right now, but a free college education will help them in the future, instead of driving them further and further down. Sanders is ever so clever, sticks to his principles, includes the very poor and ethnic/racial minorities in his plan, and isn’t afraid to say what he wants for the country, knowing that some will call him a “commie pinko” for that. I admire and approve of him, and hope he will select Senator Warren as his running mate if he is chosen. Too many of our Democrats are simply too conservative or too timid to represent those of us who need them.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s

In Mexico, Tens Of Thousands Of Illegal Guns Come From The U.S.
BILL CHAPPELL
Published January 12, 201612:15 PM ET

Photograph -- A new government report details the problems agencies face in fighting weapons trafficking. Here, thousands of guns lie on the ground before being destroyed in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in 2012.
AFP/AFP/Getty Images


From 2009 to 2014, more than 73,000 guns that were seized in Mexico were traced to the U.S., according to a new update on the effort to fight weapons trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The figure, based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, represents about 70 percent of the 104,850 firearms seized by Mexican authorities that were also submitted to U.S. authorities for tracing.

The data was analyzed by the Government Accountability Office, which notes in its report that U.S. police agencies have acknowledged firearms smuggling is fueling violent crime in Mexico.

"Most of the firearms seized in Mexico that were traced and found to be of U.S. origin from 2009 to 2014 came from U.S. Southwest border states," the GAO report says. "While guns seized in Mexico of U.S. origin were traced to all of the 50 states, most came from Texas, California, and Arizona."

Many of those guns were bought legally in the U.S. and then smuggled over the border, according to the GAO.

"About half were long guns, such as the high-caliber AR-15, preferred by cartel gunmen," NPR's John Burnett reports for our Newscast unit. "Mexican drug traffickers continue to rely on straw purchasers who legally buy the weapons in the U.S., then transfer them to criminal gangs."

The GAO report paints a picture of the challenges officials face as they try to stop the flow of weapons from the U.S. into Mexico, where laws seek to strictly limit the availability of guns to the public.

The report identifies a new wrinkle in the illegal gun trade, citing officials on both sides of the border who say they're seeing instances of unfinished gun parts being transported into Mexico, where they're used to assemble finished weapons. None of those unfinished parts — barrels and receivers; pins and triggers; grips and stocks — are covered by the U.S. Gun Control Act; they're also not subject to rules that require serial numbers, the GAO says.

In another example, the report says the ATF has been able to trace the original purchasers of less than half of the 73,684 guns that were seized and submitted for tracing.

The GAO says the agency couldn't figure out who bought 53 percent of the guns at retail "because of factors such as incomplete identifying data on trace request forms, altered serial numbers, no response from the federal firearm licensee to ATF's request for trace information, or incomplete or never received out-of-business licensee records."

Citing data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the GAO says, "the agency seized 5,951 firearms that were destined for Mexico in the last 6 years."

The new GAO report is an update of a 2009 study in which it found that the ATF and ICE were duplicating efforts and running into jurisdictional problems as they tried to fight arms trafficking.

As it did in that report, the GAO also issued recommendations — including one that calls on Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to ensure there's a way to monitor and support their agencies' sharing of information. It also called on the Office of National Drug Control Policy to set up indicators to reflect progress made by the ATF and ICE.



"The figure, based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, represents about 70 percent of the 104,850 firearms seized by Mexican authorities that were also submitted to U.S. authorities for tracing. The data was analyzed by the Government Accountability Office, which notes in its report that U.S. police agencies have acknowledged firearms smuggling is fueling violent crime in Mexico. …. Many of those guns were bought legally in the U.S. and then smuggled over the border, according to the GAO. "About half were long guns, such as the high-caliber AR-15, preferred by cartel gunmen," NPR's John Burnett reports for our Newscast unit. "Mexican drug traffickers continue to rely on straw purchasers who legally buy the weapons in the U.S., then transfer them to criminal gangs." …. The report identifies a new wrinkle in the illegal gun trade, citing officials on both sides of the border who say they're seeing instances of unfinished gun parts being transported into Mexico, where they're used to assemble finished weapons. None of those unfinished parts — barrels and receivers; pins and triggers; grips and stocks — are covered by the U.S. Gun Control Act; they're also not subject to rules that require serial numbers, the GAO says. …. The new GAO report is an update of a 2009 study in which it found that the ATF and ICE were duplicating efforts and running into jurisdictional problems as they tried to fight arms trafficking.”


Corruption abounds. I’ve never had the goal of becoming wealthy except by playing the state lottery, and I don’t do it anymore because the odds just aren’t good enough. I don’t want to deal in drugs, guns, stolen art or jewelry, white slavery, etc., all of which are reliable get rich quick schemes, and I don’t want to more or less starve myself in order to pinch every penny either. I really have chosen a reasonably comfortable though not expensive life style. I have always lived inside my own head almost completely, watched good movies and listened to good music, read mysteries, nonfiction and classics because they are reliably entertaining, and now I watch old TV shows like Perry Mason, Matlock, Bones, and more, while spending around 5 hours on this blog. Some consider that self-indulgent and it probably is, but it harms nobody and it fits within my monthly Social Security budget. I have no admiration whatsoever for people who do damaging and disgusting things for money, no matter how wealthy they become. I am happy with my life, though I buy only simple and necessary things. I have made sacrifices, but I am prepared to die when the time comes, and will endeavor to remain in a condition of personal peace until that time.



http://www.npr.org/2016/01/12/462792019/kim-davis-to-attend-obamas-state-of-the-union-address

Kim Davis To Attend Obama's State Of The Union Address
DOMENICO MONTANARO
Published January 12, 2016

Photograph -- Kim Davis, left, holds her hands in the air with her attorney Mat Staver, center, and her husband Joe Davis after she was released from jail for her refusal to grant same-sex marriage licenses. Ty Wright/Getty Images
THE TWO-WAY -- Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States


The Kentucky county clerk who went to jail over her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples will attend President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night, a group supporting her announced.

"While the [p]resident will be extolling his 'accomplishments' of the last seven years, Kim Davis and Mat Staver will be a visible reminder of the [a]dministration's attack on religious liberty and an encouragement for people of faith to stand," the Liberty Counsel wrote in a press release. Staver is Davis' attorney and the founder of the group.

Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday after the U.S Supreme Court handed down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage. The high court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states.

"For seven years, people of faith have been in the crosshairs of the Obama [a]dministration. The state of religious liberty is dire, but we cannot give up."

Also in attendance, as a guest of First Lady Michelle Obama, will be Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff whose name appears on the landmark Supreme Court case that declared same-sex marriage legal in June of last year.

Davis went to jail for five days in September, held in contempt for defying court orders to issues same-sex marriage licenses.

Davis' release was met with a rally of supporters that included Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Huckabee or Arkansas. Both have been angling for the support of the religious right.

A spokeswoman for the Liberty Counsel said it would not say which member of Congress invited Davis. "No, we are not releasing that information," Charla Bansley told NPR.

She noted, "The focus we want to be on is why Kim is there, and Kim is there because she is standing for the many Americans, who have not benefited under President Obama's seven years, and specifically had their religious liberty trampled."



“A spokeswoman for the Liberty Counsel said it would not say which member of Congress invited Davis. "No, we are not releasing that information," Charla Bansley told NPR.” Interesting, but not surprising. Somebody just had to make a point. Too bad he or she is afraid to acknowledge that he/she did it.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/01/11/462391470/a-hardier-honeybee-that-fights-back-by-biting-back

A Hardier Honeybee That Fights Back By Biting Back
LOU BLOUIN
Published January 11, 20161:39 PM ET

Photograph -- Maryann Frazier, a researcher at Penn State's Center for Pollinator Research, checks on one of her experimental honeybee hives. Frazier is testing the effects of pesticides on honeybee colonies. Lou Blouin for NPR
Photograph -- mushroom expert Paul Stamets. THE SALT Could A Mushroom Save The Honeybee?
Photograph -- Maryann Frazier, a researcher at Penn State's Center for Pollinator Research, checks on one of her experimental honeybee hives. THE SALT Don't Worry, Honey, The Other Bees Have Your Back


Keeping honeybees healthy has become a challenge for beekeepers. One main reason is a threat that has been wiping out bees since the late 1980s: the varroa mite.

"It's a parasitic mite that feeds on the blood of adult bees and on the brood. It also transmits virus, and it suppresses the immune system of the bees," explains Penn State honeybee expert Maryann Frazier.

It's basically like having a 6-pound house cat attached to your side, sucking the life out of you. These mites wiped out colonies across the world. And treatments were, and still are, pretty limited. In fact, the way most beekeepers treat bees for mites sounds a little crazy: They actually spray bees — which are, of course, insects — with low-dose insecticides. The hope is they'll kill the mites, but not the bees.

"But you can imagine how difficult it is to control a mite on a bee with a pesticide," Frazier says. Still, the strategy has worked well enough to at least give colonies a fighting chance.

But a co-op of about 100 beekeepers stretching from Michigan to Tennessee is trying a different approach. On his farm near Slippery Rock in Western Pennsylvania, beekeeper Jeff Berta lights a smoker to check on one of his all-star queen bees. This queen, he says, could be the future of honeybees in Pennsylvania.

"No. 18, there," Berta says, pointing to a queen with a little fluorescent yellow tag on it. "That little disc there with the '18' on it, we call those our NASCAR bees because they have numbers on them."

No. 18 is bit of a science experiment, funded with money from the USDA. This queen's mother is from a Vermont colony that survived disease and cold winters. And then Berta had her artificially inseminated by Purdue University scientists who were raising bees that demonstrated a unique, mite-fighting grooming behavior.

"The bees will take the mite and they will bite the legs and will chew on the mite," Berta says. "And if they bite a leg off of the mite, the mite will bleed to death. So the bees are actually fighting back. That's the type of genetic line we're after right now."

So now with every egg No. 18 lays, she passes on those leg-biting behaviors — making a colony that can rid itself of mites naturally, with no help from pesticides. It's a huge breakthrough.

Bucking the paradigm in the beekeeping world, beekeeper and breeder Jeff Berta doesn't use pesticides to control mites on his honeybee colonies near Slippery Rock, Pa. Instead, he breeds bees that have natural grooming behaviors that keep colonies free of mites.

Bucking the paradigm in the beekeeping world, beekeeper and breeder Jeff Berta doesn't use pesticides to control mites on his honeybee colonies near Slippery Rock, Pa. Instead, he breeds bees that have natural grooming behaviors that keep colonies free of mites.

But the breeding project can't end there. Because Berta can't artificially inseminate every queen, any descendants of No. 18 that turn into queens themselves will most likely just fly off and mate with any old drones within a few miles. That means if Berta's beekeeping neighbors don't have strong bees, too, they can easily dilute his carefully selected lines.

"So you can't produce a stock and say, 'Now I'm done! And that was it! Now we can sell it everywhere!' " says Penn State bee geneticist Christina Grozinger, who works with Berta. "You have to constantly re-select and constantly have to have people very interested in working as part of this effort."

That's why Berta and the co-op of beekeepers happily give eggs from their best colonies to their neighbors and swap queens to try out new genetics. It's all part of shifting the paradigm from a system where beekeepers simply buy new bees every year to a lasting neighborhood of bees that can slowly create real survivors.

"There really isn't any bee that laid the golden egg," Berta says. "Genetics with honeybees is more like a river, and the river is always changing."

Lou Blouin is a reporter for The Allegheny Front, a public radio program based in Pittsburgh that covers the environment.



"It's a parasitic mite that feeds on the blood of adult bees and on the brood. It also transmits virus, and it suppresses the immune system of the bees," explains Penn State honeybee expert Maryann Frazier. …. So now with every egg No. 18 lays, she passes on those leg-biting behaviors — making a colony that can rid itself of mites naturally, with no help from pesticides. It's a huge breakthrough. Bucking the paradigm in the beekeeping world, beekeeper and breeder Jeff Berta doesn't use pesticides to control mites on his honeybee colonies near Slippery Rock, Pa. Instead, he breeds bees that have natural grooming behaviors that keep colonies free of mites. …. "So you can't produce a stock and say, 'Now I'm done! And that was it! Now we can sell it everywhere!' " says Penn State bee geneticist Christina Grozinger, who works with Berta. "You have to constantly re-select and constantly have to have people very interested in working as part of this effort."


I don’t know if this is the cause of the deadly colony collapse disorder that is threating the main pollinator of many human food crops in North America and Europe. This genetic solution is still a great discovery in its’ own right. I’ll bet there will be government departments of bee breeding in the next few years in nations around the world, as they continue to try to solve the problem entirely by stopping the horrid insects in their tracks. According to a good article on the subject in Wikipedia, there are actually more than one mite that are suspected of causing the illness, and it is not actually a new condition. A documented case goes back to the early 1900s on the Isle of Wight which then spread throughout the UK.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder. For those of us who are avid tree-huggers, it’s a great read.