March 20, 2016


News Clips For The Day


COPS KILLED IN ACTION TWO ARTICLES

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-police-officer-allen-jacobs-killed-trying-to-question-teen-deondea-mackey/

South Carolina police officer killed trying to question teen
CBS/AP
March 19, 2016, 5:00 PM

Photograph -- Greenville, South Carolina police officer Allen Jacobs, 28, seen in a picture obtained by CBS affiliate WSPA, was shot and killed by a teenage gang member while on duty March 18, 2016.


GREENVILLE, S.C. -- A South Carolina police officer was shot and killed Friday as he and a partner were trying to question a self-professed gang member who they had been told was trying to buy a gun, the chief said.

Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller told a news conference Friday that Officer Allen Jacobs and a second officer got out of their car and were trying to question Deondea Mackey, 17 when he ran from them.

Miller initially said the officers were trying to serve a warrant, but later said police were acting on a report that Mackey, a self-professed gang member with a criminal record, was trying to buy a gun.

Miller said Jacobs chased Mackey, who ran behind a house. The second officer was on the phone with a dispatcher when he heard gunshots and when he reached the scene, he found Jacobs on the ground, Miller said.

"Our officers who were here on the scene and who responded to assist performed CPR on our officer and the CPR was unsuccessful," Miller said.

Jacobs was pronounced dead at Greenville Memorial Hospital, CBS affiliate WSPA reported.

The police department described Jacobs as a dedicated officer who worked on gang activity. He had been on the force for four-and-a-half years.

Jacobs was married and was the father of two young boys. His wife is pregnant with the couple's daughter due to be born in July.

Prior to joining the police department in 2011, he served in the U.S. Army and was a decorated Iraq War veteran and received numerous medals and commendations for his service.

"This is everyone's worst nightmare... This is a sad day for Greenville. This is a sad day for his family," Miller said.

A vigil was planned Saturday at Jacobs' church, and an online fundraising page had raised nearly $50,000 for his family.

Jacobs was wearing a chest-mounted body camera, but Miller said he didn't know if the camera was operating and added that the camera was shattered. The chief also said Jacobs' gun was still in his holster when his partner found him.

According to Miller, the pursuit of Mackey continued and he was spotted a short distance away. Miller said Mackey made a phone call before he shot and killed himself. The chief said earlier that Mackey had called his mother.

Miller didn't say what kinds of weapons were used in the shootings.



“Jacobs was wearing a chest-mounted body camera, but Miller said he didn't know if the camera was operating and added that the camera was shattered. The chief also said Jacobs' gun was still in his holster when his partner found him. According to Miller, the pursuit of Mackey continued and he was spotted a short distance away. Miller said Mackey made a phone call before he shot and killed himself. The chief said earlier that Mackey had called his mother.”


This is an unusual example of a murder-suicide. It usually happens behind closed doors where family violence is the norm. The young man in this story may have been frightened by the initial encounter with the police when they were either “trying to question him,” “trying to serve a warrant,” or attempting to arrest him for “trying to buy a gun.” I get that uncomfortable feeling here that the police chief is trying to cover up what really was happening. It is undeniable, however, the black kid did have a gun and did shoot the officer. The statement that Officer Jacobs didn’t even pull his gun makes it even worse.

A state of war, it seems to me, exists between black communities and white police officers. It probably always has, but didn’t hit the newspapers as often thirty years ago as it does now. I really would like to see more black police officers in those areas and in all neighborhoods in fact, though black policemen can be corrupt and vicious also. I don’t think this officer was one of the “bad” ones, though, but rather one who proceeded into a dangerous area without the aid of his partner. That’s just not wise. Courage is good, but a foolish move is not.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/india-beaty-woman-shot-by-norfolk-virginia-police-was-holding-fake-gun/

Woman shot by Virginia police was holding fake gun
CBS/AP
March 19, 2016, 6:18 PM

Photograph -- Police tape blocks a street after a fatal police shooting Saturday, March 19, 2016 in Norfolk, Virginia. WTKR
Photograph -- va-shooting-gun.jpg, Norfolk police said India Beaty, 25, was holding this non-firing replica gun when she was shot and killed by officers Saturday, March 19, 2016 in Norfolk, Virginia. WTKR

NORFOLK, Va. -- A 25-year-old black woman was shot and killed by police officers in Virginia on Saturday after threatening them with what turned out to be a fake handgun, police said.

Investigators with the Norfolk Police Department's Vice and Narcotics Division were conducting a surveillance operation when they came across a fight in a parking lot, police said.

The officers saw a woman involved in the altercation brandish what they believed was a handgun and threaten an unarmed man. The officers approached India M. Beaty, who refused to comply with their demands and made a threatening motion with the handgun before the officers fatally shot her, the department said.

An investigation determined that the handgun was a non-firing replica.

In following with the department's protocol, the officers have been pulled from the field and placed on administrative duty until the investigation is complete, CBS affiliate WTKR reported. The department said it won't release the names of the officers while the investigation is underway.

Cpl. Melinda Wray, a police spokeswoman, told the Associated Press she didn't know the races of the officers who were involved.

Beaty was pronounced dead at the scene. Her family members said she was a mother of four.

Norfolk Police Chief Michael Goldsmith said his thoughts and prayers are with Beaty's loved ones.

"Any loss of life is tragic," Goldsmith said in a statement, according to WTKR. "This morning's events affect not only my officers and Ms. Beaty's family members, but our entire community. My thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Beaty's loved ones and we appreciate the public's patience as we continue this investigation."

The Virginian-Pilot reported that it was the third police-involved shooting in Norfolk this year.

Earlier this month, Norfolk police shot and killed Tyre Privott. The 25-year-old was a suspect in a killing and was confronted by police while walking in the road. Privott shot at police and an officer fired, striking and killing him, police said.



“The officers approached India M. Beaty, who refused to comply with their demands and made a threatening motion with the handgun before the officers fatally shot her, the department said.”


If this story is correct and complete, it is a clear case of an officer doing what he was trained to do, and what happened to make sense at the time. The photo of the non-firing replica pistol is enough to convince me that he had just cause to shoot her. It is a “replica” indeed, and not a toy. She was the one, rather than the cop, who was acting foolishly in this story. I would further point out that she was not 12 years old and certainly should have known better. Of course she may have been under the influence of something or in the midst of a mental breakdown. I would only say that I do wish police would not shoot to kill in every case. Whatever happened to pulling their weapon and shouting sternly “Drop it!” like they do on my favorite TV shows?



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/molenbeek-brussels-belgium-isis-terror-recruiting-ground/

Molenbeek: Terror recruiting ground
By CHRISTINA RUFFINI CBS NEWS
January 25, 2016, 7:30 PM

Photograph -- anis2.jpg, Anis Abou Bram FAMILY PHOTO
CBSN Originals: Les Banlieues -- Searching for the seeds of terror
Play VIDEO -- Les Banlieues: Seeds of Terror
Photograph -- geraldine-sad.jpg, Geraldine Henneghien. CBS NEWS
Play VIDEO -- CBSN Originals: "Molenbeek" Analysis Part 1
Play VIDEO -- CBSN Originals: "Molenbeek" Analysis Part 2


BRUSSELS, Belgium -- There's a picture of Anis Abou Bram before he changed his name. Before he got on a plane for Syria. Before he grew out his beard and told his mother he was never coming home. In it, he's wearing a dark shirt and slacks, standing against a door in their family home. He is clean-shaven, with short, styled hair.

It's a photo every teenager has taken -- or rather, has taken of them.

Someone wanted to document it --- this moment capturing a young person on the cusp of adulthood, this happy memory that they would dig out of a scrapbook years later and smile.

But now, Anis' mother rarely smiles when she speaks of him. It's too painful. It raises too many questions about how he went astray and what she did wrong.

"We were not thinking about radicalization because at this moment, in Belgium, nobody was thinking about Syria, and the young who went to Syria," Geraldine Henneghien told CBS News correspondent Vladmir Duthier in a cafe in Brussels. Anis left for Syria in January 2014. "The recruitment took four months. Only four months."

Geraldine believes her son was recruited outside of a mosque in Molenbeek, their neighborhood in Brussels. The predominately Muslim community has, in recent months, become the ground zero of terror in Europe. Three of the Paris attackers, including ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, grew up here. The mayor can see the family home of two others, Salah and Ibrahim Abdeslam, from her desk.

"Here in Molenbeek you have a lot of people who are Muslim, a lot of people who are coming from Morocco. So it explains, this is one of the reasons why we have so many people in contact with radicalism, with jihadism," said Mayor Francoise Schepmans.

Belgium provides more foreign fighters to Iraq and Syria, per capita, than any other European nation, and authorities estimate that 130 of these battle-trained extremists have returned home. Schepmans says it's the federal government's responsibility to keep track of terrorists, not hers.

"We try to get information but the fight against terrorists, it's not [on] the local level. It's [on] the federal level."

The mayor's office told us there are about 800 suspected jihadists in Belgium, 450 in Brussels, and 85 in Molenbeek. Brussels has a population of just over 1 million people, but it has six different police departments and 19 districts. The federal government has authority over counter-terrorism, but relies on local departments to provide on-the-ground intelligence and surveillance. It's a jurisdictional nightmare.

"We have four people who deal with everything that has to do with radicalism," said Molenbeek Police Commissioner Johan Berckmans. He took us into a small command center where half a dozen officers keep watch over hundreds of CCTV cameras across town. The biggest problem, he says, isn't jurisdictional. It's manpower.

"I think we work already well together, but I think we need more men - both local and federal - to fight the terrorist threat."

Physically, Molenbeek itself is not remarkably different from the rest of Brussels. The architecture is the same. The streets are relatively clean. The biggest difference is the people. Almost every woman wears a headscarf. Men walk to mosque in long robes and sandals. There are about 100,000 residents and at least 22 mosques, not including prayer rooms and other, private religious centers.

We went to the Al Khalil mosque, the largest and most influential in Molenbeek, to ask Imam Mohammed Tojgani why he thought so many young people in his neighborhood were turning to extremism. He spoke through a translator because he does not speak French or Flemish, only Arabic -- not uncommon for residents of this neighborhood.

"He doesn't know why they do this because it's not logic. There is no logic. There is something missing in this. They are not stable. They are not rational," the translator said. "It gives a bad image, a false image for the people who is living in Belgium, for Muslims and for the religion."

Tojgani blamed outside forces, including violent television and the Internet for the radicalization in his community. Authorities blame each other, a lack of resources and the influx of foreign elements to their streets. Geraldine, blames the men who convinced her son that his future was thousands of miles from his home country, and she also blames herself.

"If I can go back, I will be more present with my son," She said. "Because I think that perhaps if I was more present, then I would detect the signs, and I will try to do something."

In early 2015, Geraldine received a message from someone who told her Anis had died in an airstrike. She never received a photo of his body or any proof of his death.

"I don't pay the ticket. I was not agreed that he go there," she said. "And now, as all the parents of the dead children, we say what can I do? ... What didn't I do?"



"Here in Molenbeek you have a lot of people who are Muslim, a lot of people who are coming from Morocco. So it explains, this is one of the reasons why we have so many people in contact with radicalism, with jihadism," said Mayor Francoise Schepmans. Belgium provides more foreign fighters to Iraq and Syria, per capita, than any other European nation, and authorities estimate that 130 of these battle-trained extremists have returned home. Schepmans says it's the federal government's responsibility to keep track of terrorists, not hers. …. The mayor's office told us there are about 800 suspected jihadists in Belgium, 450 in Brussels, and 85 in Molenbeek. Brussels has a population of just over 1 million people, but it has six different police departments and 19 districts. The federal government has authority over counter-terrorism, but relies on local departments to provide on-the-ground intelligence and surveillance. It's a jurisdictional nightmare. …. He took us into a small command center where half a dozen officers keep watch over hundreds of CCTV cameras across town. The biggest problem, he says, isn't jurisdictional. It's manpower. "I think we work already well together, but I think we need more men - both local and federal - to fight the terrorist threat." …. The architecture is the same. The streets are relatively clean. The biggest difference is the people. Almost every woman wears a headscarf. Men walk to mosque in long robes and sandals. There are about 100,000 residents and at least 22 mosques, not including prayer rooms and other, private religious centers. …. . He spoke through a translator because he does not speak French or Flemish, only Arabic -- not uncommon for residents of this neighborhood. "He doesn't know why they do this because it's not logic. There is no logic. There is something missing in this. They are not stable. …. "If I can go back, I will be more present with my son," She said. "Because I think that perhaps if I was more present, then I would detect the signs, and I will try to do something."


Parents not being “more present with my son” is a central reason worldwide for everything from juvenile delinquency to, in this case, a pseudoreligious form of political indoctrination, which is particularly dangerous to civilization as a whole. Parents need to have some control over their kids, yes, but they also have to listen to them and sometimes give them professional mental health treatment. I do not believe that a stable and fully intelligent young person will get so enthralled with something that they see on the Internet or hear around their Mosque, that they would decide to travel several thousand miles to join a truly vicious group.

A news article either yesterday or today is about a young man who was captured by the Kurds and strongly expressed his disenchantment with the radical ISIS movement. They just don’t think about what being around all that killing and torture will do to them. It truly is sad. In addition, of course, there is a very high concentration of Islamic people in one neighborhood, which is probably a neighborhood where people feel themselves to be the target of personal and cultural discrimination. It causes anger and discouragement, and from that can come true hatred.


POLITICS IN TURMOIL


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kasich-guarantees-brokered-gop-convention/

John Kasich guarantees brokered GOP convention
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS FACE THE NATION
March 20, 2016, 10:43 AM

Photograph -- Republican presidential candidate and Ohio Gov. John Kasich joins "Face the Nation" for an interview that airs March 20, 2016.


Ohio Gov. John Kasich has a message for everyone who's worrying that Donald Trump is close to securing the 1,237 delegates he needs to win Republican nomination outright: it's not going to happen, for him nor any other candidate.

"Nobody's going to have the delegates they need going to the convention," he said. "Everyone will fall short."

He said said [sic] once the delegates arrive in Cleveland, they'll focus on which candidate has the best chance of winning in November.

"We will go into Cleveland with momentum and then the delegates are going to consider two things: Number one, who can win in the fall--and I'm the only one that can, that's what the polls indicate," he said. "And number two, a really crazy consideration, like who could actually be president of the United States."

At the convention itself, Kasich noted that the candidate who goes in with the most delegates hasn't historically been the one to get the nomination most of the time.

"If you go in way ahead you're likely to be picked, but what's interesting is in the 10 contested Republican conventions, did you know that the leader going in only got picked three times?" he asked.

As for the candidates who have suggested the Ohio governor should get out of the race to avoid playing spoiler -- namely, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz -- Kasich responded: why don't those candidates drop out instead?

"Nobody is calling me directly and asking me to drop out," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Wait a minute--why don't they drop out? I'm the one who can win in the fall."

He said Cruz needs 80 percent of the remaining delegates in order to get to 1,237, which he said is "not going to happen," and noted establishment figures have been pushing him to step aside for a while now.

"You know what's interesting? Some of those very same people wanted me to get out of the race and they wanted to get behind Rubio," he said. "What happened? Rubio's out, I'm in. Now they want me to get out? Listen, these are the same establishment people that have been fighting me my entire political career."

Kasich also took a veiled shot at Cruz's experience, referring to Republicans' frustration with President Obama as a first-term senator without much experience back in 2008. (Cruz, a first-term senator, was elected in 2012.)

"This party has run around for seven years saying how is it that we elected a one-term United States Senator to be president who's never had the experience," he said. "Whatever happened to that?"

The Ohio governor called GOP front-runner Donald Trump's suggestion that there would be riots if he doesn't get the nomination "outrageous," condemning the violence Trump has seemingly incited at his rallies across the country.

"When he says that there could be riots, that's inappropriate," Kasich said. "I think you understand that, okay? Secondly, while we have our differences and disagreements, we're Americans. Americans don't say, 'Let's take to the streets and have violence.'"

Kasich also said in the interview that Senate Republicans should meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, though he later clarified that he was only making "an effort to be polite."



“Ohio Gov. John Kasich has a message for everyone who's worrying that Donald Trump is close to securing the 1,237 delegates he needs to win Republican nomination outright: it's not going to happen, for him nor any other candidate. "Nobody's going to have the delegates they need going to the convention," he said. "Everyone will fall short." …. "If you go in way ahead you're likely to be picked, but what's interesting is in the 10 contested Republican conventions, did you know that the leader going in only got picked three times?" he asked. As for the candidates who have suggested the Ohio governor should get out of the race to avoid playing spoiler -- namely, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz -- Kasich responded: why don't those candidates drop out instead? …. "You know what's interesting? Some of those very same people wanted me to get out of the race and they wanted to get behind Rubio," he said. "What happened? Rubio's out, I'm in. Now they want me to get out? Listen, these are the same establishment people that have been fighting me my entire political career." …. The Ohio governor called GOP front-runner Donald Trump's suggestion that there would be riots if he doesn't get the nomination "outrageous," condemning the violence Trump has seemingly incited at his rallies across the country. "When he says that there could be riots, that's inappropriate," Kasich said. "I think you understand that, okay? Secondly, while we have our differences and disagreements, we're Americans. Americans don't say, 'Let's take to the streets and have violence.'"


“Kasich also said in the interview that Senate Republicans should meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, though he later clarified that he was only making "an effort to be polite." Kasich is in many ways a good person. If I have to have a Republican president in this election, I’d prefer to have him over all the others. It’s a shame that he seems to have chickened out over his statement about Garland.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousands-protest-donald-trump-in-new-york-city-election-2016/

Hundreds protest Donald Trump in New York City
CBS/AP
March 19, 2016, 6:00 PM

Photograph -- trump-nyc-protest-2.jpg, People rally as they take part in a protest against Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in New York on March 19,2016. KENA BETANCUR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Photograph -- trump-nyc-protest-3.jpg, A man dressed up as Donald Trump holds a banner during a protest rally against Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in New York on March 19,2016. KENA BETANCUR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES


NEW YORK -- Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of one of Donald Trump's signature Manhattan buildings Saturday to protest the GOP front-runner, CBS New York reports.

The protesters gathered Saturday in Manhattan's Columbus Circle, across from Central Park, with a heavy police presence. Demonstrators chanted: "Donald Trump, go away, racist, sexist, anti-gay."

They marched across south Central Park to Trump Tower, the Fifth Avenue skyscraper where Trump lives. Then they marched back to Columbus Circle for a rally.

At least two protesters were arrested for walking in the street. A group of demonstrators that tried to break through a police barricade was pushed back by officers, who used pepper spray.

Some protesters at the event told CBS New York station WINS-AM that they couldn't believe Trump has come this far in the election and that they believe his rhetoric is divisive and racist.

"We're here because Donald Trump is the antithesis of what America stands for," one Westchester man said.

"We gotta make sure we get out and vote and make sure our voices are heard," another protester from Manhattan said.

One sign read "Love Trumps Hate." Another read, "Will trade 1 Donald Trump for 25,000 refugees."

There were some Trump supporters at the rally that were heckled, but the protest remained peaceful, WINS-AM reported.

The protest was organized by political group Cosmopolitan Antifascists.

"Trump's policies threaten many of us in the Black, Latino, LGBTQIA+, Muslim, and other communities," the group said in a Facebook post for the planned protest. "These policies and type of speech has no place in this country and certainly does not have a place in the city that Trump grew his empire in - a city known as a melting pot and home for many of the same people Trump continues to wage war on."

The protest was backed by several activism groups, including ICE-FREE NYC, International Women's Day Coalition, Millions March NYC, Queer DEtainee Empowerment Project, Revolutionaries Against Gendered Oppression Everywhere [RAGE], among others.

Meanwhile, hundreds of immigrant rights advocates also protested in Arizona, where Trump was campaigning ahead of their upcoming primary.

A week ago, protesters forced Trump to cancel a campaign event in Chicago after they and supporters of the Republican front-runner faced off in several violent altercations.


“Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of one of Donald Trump's signature Manhattan buildings Saturday to protest the GOP front-runner, CBS New York reports. The protesters gathered Saturday in Manhattan's Columbus Circle, across from Central Park, with a heavy police presence. Demonstrators chanted: "Donald Trump, go away, racist, sexist, anti-gay." They marched across south Central Park to Trump Tower, the Fifth Avenue skyscraper where Trump lives. Then they marched back to Columbus Circle for a rally. At least two protesters were arrested for walking in the street. A group of demonstrators that tried to break through a police barricade was pushed back by officers, who used pepper spray. …. Some protesters at the event told CBS New York station WINS-AM that they couldn't believe Trump has come this far in the election …. There were some Trump supporters at the rally that were heckled, but the protest remained peaceful, WINS-AM reported. The protest was organized by political group Cosmopolitan Antifascists. …. The protest was backed by several activism groups, including ICE-FREE NYC, International Women's Day Coalition, Millions March NYC, Queer DEtainee Empowerment Project, Revolutionaries Against Gendered Oppression Everywhere [RAGE], among others.”


I’m glad to see the Anti-Trump marchers are coming from a broad swath of our citizens, and I do hope they have their necessary proof of ID or whatever and that they will show up en masse at the polls. So far the cops are just arresting them and then releasing or dropping charges. I’m glad to see such a large crowd there.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/violence-erupts-at-donald-trump-rally-in-tucson-arizona-election-2016/

Violence erupts at Donald Trump rally in Tucson
By JACQUELINE ALEMANY CBS NEWS
March 19, 2016, 10:30 PM

Play VIDEO -- Trump campaign manager involved in Arizona protest scuffle
Photograph -- trump-arizona-punch.jpg, A member of the audience, right, throws a punch at a protester as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event in Tucson, Arizona March 19, 2015. REUTERS/SAM MIRCOVICH
Play VIDEO -- Protesters, Romney and GOP push to stop Trump
Photograph -- trump84987999403.jpg, A Donald Trump protester and supporter get into an altercation at the conclusion of a Trump rally at the Tucson Convention Center on Saturday March 19, 2016, in Tucson, Ariz. MAMTA POPAT/ARIZONA DAILY STAR VIA AP


TUCSON, Ariz. -- Another Donald Trump event erupted in violence in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday night: a rally attendee was arrested after he punched and repeatedly kicked a protester as he was being escorted out of the rally by security.

Additionally, Arizona's infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio - who has endorsed Trump because of the GOP front-runner's immigration stance - said his officers locked up protesters who blocked a main highway leading to the rally and "threw them in jail."

Arpaio, who assured the crowd at the event that he believes Trump will deliver on his promise to build a giant wall on the border with Mexico, has introduced Trump at multiple campaign events.

Trump's campaign events have displayed levels of violence during the 2016 White House campaign that most political experts can't remember seeing in their lifetime in national politics. Many have accused the GOP front-runner of inciting the violence. Trump has dismissed the frequent aggressiveness and fisticuffs as the work of "thugs" who don't support him.

The unidentified protester who was punched Saturday was being escorted out after disrupting Trump's rally with a woman wearing Ku Klux Klan headgear. At a rally in Chicago, a similar incident occurred when a Trump protester was sucker-punched as he was being escorted from a rally. The attacker has since been charged with assault.

The woman in the incident in Tuscon kept her headgear on as she was escorted out by police, only taking the white cloth off of her head after the protester in front of her was punched. The protester was later released, per the Tucson police.

Moments before the attack, Trump spotted the Ku Klux Klan hat in the crowd and called for his security to remove the protester.

"There's a disgusting guy, puts a Ku Klux Klan hat on, he thinks he's cute, he's a disgusting guy," Trump said to the crowd. "That is a disgusting guy, really disgusting. A big wheel, a big wheel."

"They're taking away our First Amendment rights, they're troublemakers, they're no good, and we'd better be careful," Trump said after the altercation occurred in the stands. "We've got to take our country back, folks."

Trump continued to deliver his stump to the Tucson crowd, attempting to speak loudly over another contingency of protesters standing behind him loudly jeering and waving signs that read "F*** Trump."

Eventually, a gaggle of private security detail including Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and Daniel Scavino, a Senior Adviser to the campaign, infiltrated the pocket of protesters in order to escort them out of the venue.

Lewandowski has already sparked controversy on the campaign trail, having been accused of roughly handling a female reporter for Breitbart.

A video from CBS News shows a member of Trump's security detail grab an aggressive protester from one side in order to remove him from his seat.

Although Lewandowski was next to the Trump security guard who grabbed the protester, Trump's spokeswoman insisted that Lewandowski did not touch the protester himself.

"Corey Lewandowski was speaking with a protester at today's rally in Tucson, Arizona when the individual he was speaking with was pulled from behind by the man to Lewandowski's left. The video clearly shows the protester reacting to the man who pulled him, not to Mr. Lewandowski. Mr. Trump does not condone violence at his rallies, which are private events paid for by the campaign," Trump's spokeswoman wrote in an email.

"I hate to have 'em arrested, you know, we have this hall, this is our hall, and we could have him arrested, really they're trespassing, you do that - you ruin their lives, who wants to do it, right?" Trump said to the crowd, addressing the disruptive kerfuffle occurring behind him.

Earlier in the day, demonstrators blocked roads near a Trump rally in Phoenix. An anti-Trump protest drew thousands of people in New York City.



“Another Donald Trump event erupted in violence in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday night: a rally attendee was arrested after he punched and repeatedly kicked a protester as he was being escorted out of the rally by security. …. Trump's campaign events have displayed levels of violence during the 2016 White House campaign that most political experts can't remember seeing in their lifetime in national politics. Many have accused the GOP front-runner of inciting the violence. Trump has dismissed the frequent aggressiveness and fisticuffs as the work of "thugs" who don't support him.”


There is really no question that Trump “incites the violence.” Just watch and listen to his videos and you’ll see. We have a large number of ignorant, generally poor, often drunk or drugged, White Supremacists and “militia” members in this country. The “dog whistle” or race-baiting political campaigns and TV ads which in the last 50 years have been courted by the Republicans and other “conservatives,” with the result that they now since the black president was elected are rallying for a “race war.” No joke that very phrase was used by a militia member some two years ago. They don’t fear it as a sensible person would. Now their “Moses” has emerged from the business/political scene and there will probably be more and more violence. The well-known Koch brothers organization was quoted in an article very recently as saying that they will make no attempt to stop what Trump is doing or to keep him from being the nominee. The reason they give is that no matter what measures have been taken against him haven’t stopped him and they think it will be “a waste of money.” See one of the several articles on this exchange with Reuters: http://g.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271597-koch-brothers-wont-try-to-stop-trump-report.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/15/donald-trump-supporters-protesters-shameful-politics

I cheered as protesters clashed with Trump supporters. Then I felt shame
Matt Laslo Opinion
@MattLaslo
Tuesday 15 March 2016 12.34 EDT

Photograph -- ‘If we really want to give the Republican frontrunner a kick in the rear, we should do it with our ballots – not with our boots.’ Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images


I was in Philadelphia for a funeral on Friday when Chicago friends started blowing up my phone after Donald Trump’s rally was canceled. The situation in Chicago devolved into chaos, with people on both sides wildly swinging at each other, others storming the stage, vitriolic barbs being lobbed by both Trump fans and enemies alike. I should have been mourning, but I was cheering.

Chicago is the city I grew up in. I cheer for its sports teams and rappers alike (though I’m never voting Kanye for president. Sorry, bruh). That’s partially why I was initially elated that my hometown – black, brown and white alike; male and female – finally stood up to Trump and what he represents to many: outright xenophobia and thinly veiled support of racists and bigots.

My initial reaction was wrong. I’ve allowed myself to be debased by Trumpian politics, and for that I’m ashamed. American politics should be about ideas, not about who can land a more ferocious uppercut.

As voters come out on Tuesday in five pivotal, one might say yuge, states – Illinois, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio – I hope they act the opposite of the way I did on Friday. Today isn’t a day for violence and tribalism. It’s a day for boring old democracy to shine brightly across the globe and in classrooms across the US.

You wouldn’t know that from turning on your TV. Trump and his allies are trying to create a diversion. They want to turn your attention away from their angry and increasingly violent supporters. In Trump-world, all the blame lies with the progressive protesters who attend his rallies and use their first amendment rights to undercut the Mussolini-like demagogue who is the Republican frontrunner.

“There’s no violence,” Trump said at an event in North Carolina on Monday as a deadpan and mute Chris Christie sat by. “You know how many people have been hurt at our rallies? I think like, basically none, other than I guess maybe somebody got hit once or something. But there’s no violence.”

For Trump, who has quipped about paying the legal bills for people who sucker-punch young black kids even as they’re restrained, his supporters can do no wrong. They’re a mirror into his narcissistic power grab, and he loves what he’s seeing. They represent him and his power.

And look at how the failed reality TV star – I mean, failed vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin tried to spin the anti-Trump sentiment sweeping the nation: “Petty punk-ass little thuggery stuff that’s been going on with all those protesters,” she said at a rowdy Trump rally.

Let’s be clear. By “thuggery”, I believe she means black. By “punk-ass”, she means anyone who disagrees with her camp and dares to speak up. Palin, in many ways, gave us Trump. Her political death and eventual Tea Party resurrection expanded her party’s pissed-off base while fanning the flames that are now engulfing the Republican party.

Palin’s racially charged denouncement of the protesters is hypocritical coming from someone who backs a candidate as divisive as Trump. The last person we need to hear a sermon from right now is Sarah Palin – especially in a moment that deserves introspection.

On Friday night, I was brought down to Trump’s level. For that I’m sorry. The anger and violence that he’s stoked burned in me. What does it say about me that I liked seeing a Trump supporter punched in the face by a young black man? I shouldn’t like it. I shouldn’t like a lot of what I see happening in America and across the globe right now. If nothing else, election 2016 is a moment of reflection for all of us.

I just hope voters have more sense and restraint than I did when they cast their ballots. Voters have a chance to make America truly great. They have the opportunity to step out of the boxing ring that has become the Republican primary, and calmly and rationally walk into a voting booth and send Trump packing. If we really want to give the Republican frontrunner a kick in the rear, we should do it with our ballots – not with our boots.



“The situation in Chicago devolved into chaos, with people on both sides wildly swinging at each other, others storming the stage, vitriolic barbs being lobbed by both Trump fans and enemies alike. I should have been mourning, but I was cheering. …. My initial reaction was wrong. I’ve allowed myself to be debased by Trumpian politics, and for that I’m ashamed. American politics should be about ideas, not about who can land a more ferocious uppercut. …. Today isn’t a day for violence and tribalism. It’s a day for boring old democracy to shine brightly across the globe and in classrooms across the US. You wouldn’t know that from turning on your TV. Trump and his allies are trying to create a diversion. They want to turn your attention away from their angry and increasingly violent supporters. In Trump-world, all the blame lies with the progressive protesters who attend his rallies and use their first amendment rights to undercut the Mussolini-like demagogue who is the Republican frontrunner. …. For Trump, who has quipped about paying the legal bills for people who sucker-punch young black kids even as they’re restrained, his supporters can do no wrong. They’re a mirror into his narcissistic power grab, and he loves what he’s seeing. They represent him and his power. …. By “thuggery”, I believe she means black. By “punk-ass”, she means anyone who disagrees with her camp and dares to speak up. Palin, in many ways, gave us Trump. Her political death and eventual Tea Party resurrection expanded her party’s pissed-off base while fanning the flames that are now engulfing the Republican party.”


“If nothing else, election 2016 is a moment of reflection for all of us. I just hope voters have more sense and restraint than I did when they cast their ballots. Voters have a chance to make America truly great. They have the opportunity to step out of the boxing ring that has become the Republican primary, and calmly and rationally walk into a voting booth and send Trump packing.” I and undoubtedly all Democrats agree with this article, but the Republicans haven’t faced up to the results of their own leaning more and more to the right in order to get these very “ruffians” into their party. Now someone has come along who upped the ante to a degree that has apparently frightened them. If the Moderate Republicans, and I can see that there still are a few, will stick to their guns and refuse him the nomination we will have passed through this immediate political crisis. Unfortunately, now that Neo-Fascism has stepped out into the open, I don’t know if or when it will retreat back into the backwoods of our psyche again.




http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/18/dont-be-absurd-sanders-rejects-establishment-calls-drop-revolutionary-bid

Published on Friday, March 18, 2016
byCommon Dreams

Don't Be 'Absurd': Sanders Rejects Establishment Calls to Drop Revolutionary Bid
'People want to become engaged in the political process by having a vigorous primary and caucus process.'
byDeirdre Fulton, staff writer

Photograph -- Supporters hold signs and cheer as Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders takes the stage during a campaign stop in St. Charles, Missouri on March 14, 2016. (Credit: Bill Greenblatt/UPI)


Calls for him to drop out of the presidential race are "absurd," Bernie Sanders said Thursday, following reports that political heavy hitters including President Barack Obama are urging Democrats to rally around rival Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

The Missouri primary was called Thursday evening in Clinton's favor, meaning that she swept this week's contests and leading her campaign to declare Clinton has an "almost insurmountable" lead in pledged delegates. Corporate media has largely parroted that narrative.

But as Sanders told MSNBC in an interview Thursday: "The bottom line is that when only half of the American people have participated in the political process...I think it is absurd for anybody to suggest that those people not have a right to cast a vote."

In fact, he continued, "to suggest we don't fight this out to the end would be, I think, a very bad mistake. People want to become engaged in the political process by having vigorous primary and caucus process."

In an interview Friday with the Associated Press, he added, "I don't believe they have an insurmountable lead. Secretary Clinton has done phenomenally well in the Deep South and in Florida. That's where she has gotten the lion’s share of votes. And I congratulate her for that. But we're out of the Deep South now."

Referencing places like Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania, Sanders said: "We've got some big states coming up and we think if we can do well, if we go into the convention with delegates, we’ve got a shot at taking the nomination."

Indeed, the Atlantic noted on Friday, "In the next month, six states will hold caucuses, contests that often reward grassroots enthusiasm, which could give Sanders an edge. Some of the states coming up on the primary calendar also feature heavily white electorates, a demographic makeup that has helped deliver victory for Sanders in the past."

Furthermore, Kevin Gosztola wrote this week:

Staff and volunteers knew the map of primaries did not favor Sanders until after March 15. The campaign knew it would be a slog to eke out wins or avoid blowouts in states, where large numbers of delegates would be rewarded. The campaign also recognized southern states would overwhelmingly go to Clinton and give her a big lead. So, the path to victory, which Sanders believes still exists, factored in many of the outcomes which the media cites when claiming there is just no way Clinton will lose.

But observers have pointed to bigger reasons, too, for Sanders to remain in the race until the Democratic National Convention in June.

"Keeping Clinton from reverting to a neoliberal default isn’t the only reason for Sanders to stay in the race—or the most important," D.D. Guttenplan wrote this week at The Nation. "As Sanders has always said, his aim is 'a political revolution.' Winning the nomination would be nice, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to bring that about."

"Building a nationwide, durable network of mobilized, active supporters prepared to keep working for universal healthcare, a living wage, ending Wall Street welfare and America’s endless wars—including the drug wars—in numbers great enough to Occupy the Democratic Party and take it back from its corporate funders is absolutely crucial," Guttenplan wrote. "So, too, is the difficult work of stitching together movements like #BlackLivesMatter, Fight for 15, immigrant rights, climate justice, and voting rights into a coalition prepared to march together, vote together, and transform our politics—and our country. Yet that is the task we face."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License


“The Missouri primary was called Thursday evening in Clinton's favor, meaning that she swept this week's contests and leading her campaign to declare Clinton has an "almost insurmountable" lead in pledged delegates. Corporate media has largely parroted that narrative. …. Calls for him to drop out of the presidential race are "absurd," Bernie Sanders said Thursday, following reports that political heavy hitters including President Barack Obama are urging Democrats to rally around rival Hillary Clinton as the nominee …. But as Sanders told MSNBC in an interview Thursday: "The bottom line is that when only half of the American people have participated in the political process...I think it is absurd for anybody to suggest that those people not have a right to cast a vote." In fact, he continued, "to suggest we don't fight this out to the end would be, I think, a very bad mistake. People want to become engaged in the political process by having vigorous primary and caucus process." …. "Building a nationwide, durable network of mobilized, active supporters prepared to keep working for universal healthcare, a living wage, ending Wall Street welfare and America’s endless wars—including the drug wars—in numbers great enough to Occupy the Democratic Party and take it back from its corporate funders is absolutely crucial," Guttenplan wrote. "So, too, is the difficult work of stitching together movements like #BlackLivesMatter, Fight for 15, immigrant rights, climate justice, and voting rights into a coalition prepared to march together, vote together, and transform our politics—and our country. Yet that is the task we face."


Democrats are beginning to sound like “real Democrats” to me now. Language like Guttenplan’s is appearing all over the news and particularly the Internet. People on the left are stirred up as well as on the right. The November vote is the highest goal, but a “robust” primary season is also great. Too often voters just won’t “get up off their duffs” and make that simple effort. Somehow I think that the number of voters in both parties will be high this year, though, because there are some half dozen really serious and important issues in play, and to some of us perhaps basic survival.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-losses-bernie-sanders-sees-favorable-territory-ahead/

After losses, Sanders sees favorable territory ahead
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS FACE THE NATION
March 20, 2016, 10:24 AM

Play Video -- Face The Nation, March 20, 2016

Coming off tough losses in Ohio and four other states last week, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said the worst of the calendar is behind him--and that despite getting "creamed" in the Deep South, he's poised for victories on Tuesday and beyond.

"The states that are coming up just on Tuesday--we've got Idaho, we got Utah, we got Arizona, we're heading out West, we're then heading to New York," he said in an interview for CBS' "Face the Nation." "...I think as we go forward, you're going to see us doing better and better."

Sanders lost all five states that voted last Tuesday to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including several--Illinois, Ohio and Missouri--in which his campaign was hoping to do well. The losses led some pundits to start questioning whether, delegate-wise, there's a legitimate path forward for Sanders.

Ultimately, Sanders pointed out, he and Clinton received relatively similar delegate hauls in some of those states because of the proportional allocation system.

"At the end of the day if you look at Michigan, if you look at Illinois, if you look at Missouri, we come out almost the same in terms of delegates," he said.

And the senator says there's reason for his campaign to be optimistic: the South has mostly cast its votes, while the more progressive West Coast is mostly still up for grabs.

"As we head to the West Coast, which is probably the most progressive part of America, the ideas we are fighting for ... I think the people in those states really are not going to be voting for establishment politics and establishment economics," he said.

Sanders doesn't think his movement is slowing down, despite the fact that Clinton has received almost two million more votes than him.

"What you're really talking about is she did very well in the Deep South--she creamed us in Mississippi and Alabama and South Carolina," he said. "Now I wish I didn't have to say this, but everything being equal no Democrat right now--I hope that changes, and I think it will--is going to win those states in the general election."

He noted that involving people in the political process throughout the primary season is the best way to ensure strong turnout for Democrats in November, whoever ends up as the nominee.

"If we're serious about a Democratic winning in November, you've got to involve people in the process. We want a large voter turnout," he said. "The way you get a large voter turnout is to take the differences between Secretary Clinton and myself to every state in this country, get people involved in that debate."

As for convention math, even though it's highly unlikely that Sanders could get the delegates necessary to win the nomination outright, he acknowledged that flipping superdelegates who support Clinton is part of his campaign's strategy.

"The whole concept of superdelegates is problematic," he said. "But I would say in states where we have won by 20, 25 points, you know what, I think it might be a good idea for superdelegates to listen to the people in their own state."


“Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said the worst of the calendar is behind him--and that despite getting "creamed" in the Deep South, he's poised for victories on Tuesday and beyond. "The states that are coming up just on Tuesday--we've got Idaho, we got Utah, we got Arizona, we're heading out West, we're then heading to New York," he said in an interview for CBS' "Face the Nation." "...I think as we go forward, you're going to see us doing better and better." …. "At the end of the day if you look at Michigan, if you look at Illinois, if you look at Missouri, we come out almost the same in terms of delegates," he said. And the senator says there's reason for his campaign to be optimistic: the South has mostly cast its votes, while the more progressive West Coast is mostly still up for grabs. …. "Now I wish I didn't have to say this, but everything being equal no Democrat right now--I hope that changes, and I think it will--is going to win those states in the general election." He noted that involving people in the political process throughout the primary season is the best way to ensure strong turnout for Democrats in November, whoever ends up as the nominee. …. he acknowledged that flipping superdelegates who support Clinton is part of his campaign's strategy.
"The whole concept of superdelegates is problematic," he said. "But I would say in states where we have won by 20, 25 points, you know what, I think it might be a good idea for superdelegates to listen to the people in their own state."


Whatever happens, I do think he is correct that come November, there will be no more than a very few Democrats who will vote for any Republican at all, and especially Cruz or Trump. That means that after our strong effort to pick the right Democratic candidate, we will rally round the flag as we always do for the winner of the primaries. Sanders and Trump have made clear the philosophical differences between Dems and Reps, which are starkly obvious. Everybody, please go out and support the nominated Democrat against the two noxious Republican contenders.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-vast-divide-between-america-and-its-military/

The vast divide between America and its military
CBS NEWS
March 20, 2016, 10:53 AM

Photograph -- A U.S. Army soldier of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division patrols a deserted market area of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq, May 25, 2008. CHRIS HONDROS/GETTY IMAGES

The Pentagon says a U.S. Marine was killed yesterday by an ISIS rocket in northern Iraq. The attack occurred on the eve of an anniversary that many people might overlook . . . but which Iraq War veteran Matt Gallagher has not:

Thirteen years ago, the American military invaded Iraq.

Something for the history books? Not yet. Everything happening in that region -- from ISIS to airstrikes to Delta Force raids -- is connected to that decision, and the subsequent nine years of war and occupation.

According to recent polls, more than half of Americans support a ground invasion against the Islamic State. The same number would bar Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. That a ground war against ISIS would lead to substantially more refugees doesn't seem to matter -- and that such an invasion would ethically and legally be followed by a lengthy occupation also seems inconsequential, somehow.

Another recent poll revealed that 60 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds (military-age Millennials) support American combat operations against ISIS; nearly the same percentage would never join the fight, though, even if they were needed.

For too many Americans in 2016, war isn't a dire act turned to once all other options have been exhausted. It's a narcotic, a quick fix, something that happens in strange, faraway lands, where other people's sons and daughters do violent things for country.

As an Iraq veteran who spent a formative time in dusty, sectarian towns north of Baghdad, I've long wondered if America pays attention to its foreign affairs. These ugly contradictions and paradoxes don't help with that.

Which brings me to the presidential primaries.

We're a republic; citizens can support whomever they choose. But when legitimate candidates running for commander-in-chief suggest war crimes should be allowed, or that carpet-bombing makes for sound military strategy, I find myself wanting to find the supporters of these candidates and ask: "What if your son or daughter were given those missions? Would you still cheer?"

In the era of the all-volunteer force, service-members are abstractions and ciphers to many on the home front. It's easier to send abstractions and ciphers to war, and keep them there, than it is to send people we know, kids we've watched grow.

The divide between America and its military is vast. This should disturb us all, soldier and citizen. Republics don't behave like this.

Everything the military does abroad happens in our name. They don't just wear the patch of their unit; they also wear the patch of the American flag. They represent us all. It's well past time we remember that, and do right by them the way they've sworn to do right by us.

Thirteen years after Iraq, it's the least we can do.


“The Pentagon says a U.S. Marine was killed yesterday by an ISIS rocket in northern Iraq. The attack occurred on the eve of an anniversary that many people might overlook . . . but which Iraq War veteran Matt Gallagher has not: Thirteen years ago, the American military invaded Iraq. Something for the history books? Not yet. Everything happening in that region -- from ISIS to airstrikes to Delta Force raids -- is connected to that decision, and the subsequent nine years of war and occupation. …. Another recent poll revealed that 60 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds (military-age Millennials) support American combat operations against ISIS; nearly the same percentage would never join the fight, though, even if they were needed. For too many Americans in 2016, war isn't a dire act turned to once all other options have been exhausted. It's a narcotic, a quick fix, something that happens in strange, faraway lands, where other people's sons and daughters do violent things for country. …. Which brings me to the presidential primaries. We're a republic; citizens can support whomever they choose. But when legitimate candidates running for commander-in-chief suggest war crimes should be allowed, or that carpet-bombing makes for sound military strategy, I find myself wanting to find the supporters of these candidates and ask: "What if your son or daughter were given those missions? Would you still cheer?" …. They don't just wear the patch of their unit; they also wear the patch of the American flag. They represent us all. It's well past time we remember that, and do right by them the way they've sworn to do right by us.”


The shameful record of neglect by the VA, which includes medical care, educational benefits, a sufficient pension to take care of the veteran and his or her family, and so on, is fairly new, I think. I remember that right after WWII my uncle got a house loan and educational financing for his service. I assume his medical bills were covered for the most part, too, of course. When the Republicans took over they became less interested as time went by in funding the needs of veterans than they are in paying the front end costs of building ever newer and better weapons, often also occupation forces, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have been essentially destroyed due to the long years of war there.

The Republicans’ avowed goal is to make our government smaller and less active in a whole range of things from infrastructure to schools to SS and MCR while they carry out a program of Corporate Welfare and war. The problem is that we do need to be continuing those Democratic causes -- healthcare etc. The idea that a population this size can be simply left to their own devices in issues like making enough money for a half-decent life, food, housing, education and medicine is totally impractical. That’s how US and world politics is carried on, unfortunately. That kind of thing is the main factor that makes the population of Third World countries hate Americans.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-warns-state-of-georgia-over-religious-freedom-bill/

NFL warns state of Georgia over "religious freedom" bill
CBS/AP
March 20, 2016, 10:29 AM

Photograph -- Atlanta Falcons receiver Julio Jones (11) dives for the pylon to score a touchdown in the third quarter against Dallas Cowboys cornerback Tyler Patmon (26) at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Tex., on Sept. 27, 2015. © USA TODAY SPORTS / REUTERS, USA TODAY SPORTS


ATLANTA - Mindful of Atlanta's bid to host the Super Bowl, Falcons owner Arthur Blank said Friday he opposes a so-called "religious freedom" bill approved by the Georgia Legislature that protects opponents of same-sex marriage amid concerns it could lead to discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people.

Indiana famously passed a similar bill last year, only to roll back some of the harsher provisions after a sustained public outcry.

The NFL acknowledged that the religious exemptions bill, passed by both houses of the Legislature but still needing the signature of Gov. Nathan Deal, could have an impact on the selection process for the championship game in 2019 and 2020.

Atlanta is one of the finalists for the next two Super Bowls to be awarded, along with New Orleans, Miami and Tampa. The city has been considered a clear favorite because of its new retractable-roof stadium, set to open next year.

The religious exemptions bill could change that.

"NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard," league spokesman Brian McCarthy said. "Whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors NFL owners may use to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites."

Blank said he opposes the bill, the latest in a string of business leaders to come out against the proposed law. He was a co-founder of Home Depot and has owned the Falcons since 2002.

"I strongly believe a diverse, inclusive and welcoming Georgia is critical to our citizens and the millions of visitors coming to enjoy all that our great state has to offer," Blank said in a statement Friday. "House Bill 757 undermines these principles and would have long-lasting negative impact on our state and the people of Georgia."

CBS affiliate WGCL in Atlanta reports that both the Atlanta Hawks and the Atlanta Braves have also released statements critical of the bill.

"The Atlanta Braves organization believes that House Bill 757 is detrimental to our community and bad for Georgia," the statement reads. "Our organization believes in an environment that is inclusive of all people. In addition to allowing discrimination against citizens of this state, the bill will have a profoundly negative impact on our organization."

This week, lawmakers also approved the elimination of $10 million in state sales taxes on Super Bowl tickets if Atlanta lands the game.

The city had hosted the game two times, in 1994 and 2000. Subsequent bids failed to gain approval, with the NFL saying the city would be in a much stronger position if it built a new stadium to replace the 24-year-old Georgia Dome.

Mercedes-Benz Stadium is going up next door to the Georgia Dome, which will be leveled after its replacement opens. The new $1.4 billion facility has already helped Atlanta land the college football championship game in 2018 and the NCAA Final Four in 2020.



This is a very interesting and enlightening news article. Some of those “religious freedom” issues put the pinch on lots of individual people around the country. One thing I’ve noticed since moving out of the small town environment that I grew up in is that the number of gays are not few in number at all. They were simply always hidden behind their closed doors in the 1950s when I was in school. Major league sports was one of those hiding places, but apparently the NFL’s gay players are known to them. Likewise, gays and liberals have been engaging in boycotts, petitions, calling campaigns, etc. That makes governments around the country understand that getting the votes of the Rightists is not the only important issue.

Now that gays want full civil rights under all conditions, “religious freedom” has become a real problem AS IT IS BEING DEFINED BY DOMINIONISTS. When I was young, “religious freedom” was being able to go to any church you wanted to and none at all if you so wished. As a tip of the hat to the town’s churches, most stores weren’t open on Sunday – though they were on the Jewish Sabbath. In those day churches were places for individuals to gather together to worship, and not centers of political activity, with the exception of black churches which were civil rights oriented and centers for business meetings. Of course those white churches which were used for KKK related activities were also an exception, but that information wasn’t broadcast in the streets.

Being denied service is really unacceptable nowadays, which is pretty new. In the range of 10 to 15 years ago a Bojangles Restaurant got into trouble for refusing to serve blacks. They apologized and changed their policy. Blacks, gays and Hispanics have all been denied service in restaurants, etc., in those cozy little small towns, at least, until the last twenty or so years. Now in lots of places, unbeknownst to me until this news article, the offended minorities are fighting back, with some surprising support. A boycott is a powerful weapon. Not only are people moving to other places, but businesses are too. There have been a couple of articles like this recently in which businesses are beginning to change their ways.



HEALTH, MEDICINE AND MONEY

NOTE: I had no time to preview and comment on these three articles, but they are important or at any rate interesting, so read them for yourselves.



http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/17/470713717/stand-to-work-if-you-like-but-dont-brag-about-its-benefits

Stand To Work If You Like, But Don't Brag About The Benefits
ANGUS CHEN
Updated March 17, 20161:00 PM ET
Published March 17, 201611:25 AM ET

Photo illustration by Meredith Rizzo/NPR -- An analysis of 20 studies failed to find good evidence that standing at a work desk is better than sitting.


I've been itching to get a standing desk. After all, America's sitting itself into an early grave. Sitting is the new smoking. Clearly, a standing desk would stop me from sitting, and standing is just so much better for you than sitting, right?

Contrary to popular belief, science does not say so.

Too much sitting increases heart failure risk and disability risk, and shortens life expectancy, studies have found. But according to an analysis published Wednesday of 20 of the best studies done so far, there's little evidence that workplace interventions like the sit-stand desk or even the flashier pedaling or treadmill desks will help you burn lots more calories, or prevent or reverse the harm of sitting for hours on end.

"What we actually found is that most of it is, very much, just fashionable and not proven good for your health," says Dr. Jos Verbeek, a health researcher at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

Verbeek says that the studies he and his co-authors analyzed came to conflicting conclusions about whether sit-stand desks reduce sitting time. Even the best research available wasn't great, the researchers write in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The studies were either too small to be significant, the scientists say, or were poorly designed. For example, most were not randomized controlled trials, and the longest study followed participants for only six months.

In fact, there isn't really any evidence that standing is better than sitting, Verbeek adds. The extra calories you burn from standing over sitting for a day are barely enough to cover a couple of banana chips.

"The idea you should be standing four hours a day? There's no real evidence for that," he says. "I would say that there's evidence that standing can be bad for your health." A 2005 study in Denmark showed prolonged standing at work led to a higher hospitalization risk for enlarged veins.

But standing doesn't have to be harmful, says Lucas Carr, a behavioral medicine professor at the University of Iowa who was not involved in the meta-analysis. He thinks as long as you stand in moderation, you can still reap some benefits.

"The health benefits of standing are not well-known," Carr agrees. "But you're going to burn more calories standing than sitting. I know it's not a tremendous amount." Still, he says, "those calories every day over many years will add up."

Carr says the finding of the Cochrane review doesn't mean that standing desks and variations are useless. It just means there hasn't been enough study of the desks to say either way. "The state of the science is definitely early," he says. "There needs to be longer studies with more people to get a good sense these desks actually cause people to stand."

Carr thinks there is the the potential for sit-stand desks to prove useful in preventing healthy office workers from becoming unhealthy. Verbeek is less optimistic. Just because the standing desk or the pedaling desk is in the cubicle doesn't mean people will get out of the chair and use it.

"Changing behavior is very difficult," Verbeek says.

He thinks redesigning work environments might be a better way to go. "For example, organize a printer in the corridor that's further away from your desk," he says. Or — and architects can have this one for free — make the one bathroom five flights of stairs up, and restrict use of elevators to people with accessibility needs.


http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/17/470679452/drug-company-payments-mirror-doctors-brand-name-prescribing

Drug-Company Payments Mirror Doctors' Brand-Name Prescribing
CHARLES ORNSTEIN, RYANN GROCHOWSKI JONES, MIKE TIGAS
Updated March 17, 20169:51 AM ET
Published March 17, 20165:00 AM ET

Photograph -- The question of how pharmaceutical payments to doctors affect medical practice has been fraught. Hero Images/Getty Images


Doctors have long disputed the accusation that the payments they receive from pharmaceutical companies have any relationship to how they prescribe drugs.

There's been little evidence to settle the matter, until now.

A ProPublica analysis has found that doctors who receive payments from the medical industry do indeed prescribe drugs differently on average than their colleagues who don't. And the more money they receive, the more brand-name medications they tend to prescribe.

We matched records on payments from pharmaceutical and medical device makers in 2014 with corresponding data on doctors' medication choices in Medicare's prescription drug program.

Doctors who got money from drug and device makers prescribed a higher percentage of brand-name drugs overall than doctors who didn't, our analysis showed. Even those who simply got meals from companies prescribed more brand-name drugs, on average.

Moreover, as payments increased, brand-name prescribing rates tended to as well.

Doctors who received more than $5,000 from companies in 2014 typically had the highest brand-name prescribing percentages. Among internists who received no payments, for example, the average brand-name prescribing rate was about 20 percent, compared to about 30 percent for those who received more than $5,000.

Payments And Prescribing

ProPublica analyzed the prescribing patterns of doctors who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions in Medicare's drug program, known as Part D. Across five common specialties, as doctors received more money from drug and device companies, they tended to prescribe a higher percentage of brand-name drugs.

Notes
ProPublica calculated brand-name prescribing rates for doctors who received no payments, $0.01 to $100, $100 to $500, $500 to $1,000, $1,000 to $5,000 and more than $5,000 in payments from drug or device companies in 2014.

Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; ProPublica analysis
Credit: Sisi Wei/ProPublica

ProPublica's analysis doesn't prove industry payments sway doctors to prescribe particular drugs, or even a particular company's drugs. Rather, it shows that payments are associated with an approach to prescribing that, writ large, benefits drug companies' bottom line.

"It again confirms the prevailing wisdom ... that there is a relationship between payments and brand-name prescribing," said Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who provided guidance on early versions of ProPublica's analysis. "This feeds into the ongoing conversation about the propriety of these sorts of relationships. Hopefully we're getting past the point where people will say, 'Oh, there's no evidence that these relationships change physicians' prescribing practices.' "

Numerous studies show that generics, which must meet rigid Food and Drug Administration standards, work as well as name brands for most patients. Brand-name drugs typically cost more than generics and are more heavily advertised. Although some medications do not have exact generic versions, there usually is a similar one in the same category. In addition, when it comes to patient satisfaction, there isn't much difference between brands and generics, according to data collected by the website Iodine, which is building a repository of user reviews on drugs.

There's wide variation from state to state when it comes to what proportion of prescribers take industry money, our analysis found. The share of doctors taking payments in Nevada, Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina was at least twice as high as in Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Maine.

But overall, payments are widespread. Nationwide, nearly 9 in 10 cardiologists who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions for Medicare patients received payments from a drug or device company in 2014, while 7 in 10 internists and family practitioners did.

Doctors nowadays almost have to go out of their way to avoid taking payments from companies, according to Dr. Richard Baron, president and chief executive of the American Board of Internal Medicine. And those who do probably have greater skepticism about the value of brand-name medications. Conversely, doctors have to work to cultivate deep ties with companies — those worth more than $5,000 a year — and such doctors probably have a greater receptiveness to brand-name drugs, he said.

"You have the people who are going out of their way to avoid this, and you've got people who are, I'll say, pretty committed and engaged to creating relationships with pharma," Baron said. "If you are out there advocating for something, you are more likely to believe in it yourself and not to disbelieve it."

Physicians consider many factors when choosing which medications to prescribe. Some treat patients for whom few generics are available. A case in point is doctors who care for patients with HIV/AIDS. Others specialize in patients with complicated conditions who have tried generic drugs without success.

Holly Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade group, said in a statement that many factors affect doctors' prescribing decisions. A 2011 survey commissioned by the industry found that more than 9 in 10 physicians felt that a "great deal of their prescribing was influenced by their clinical knowledge and experience," Campbell said in a written statement.

"Working together, biopharmaceutical companies and physicians can improve patient care, make better use of today's medicines and foster the development of tomorrow's cures," she wrote. "Physicians provide real-world insights and valuable feedback and advice to inform companies about their medicines to improve patient care."

Individual doctors who received large payments from industry and had above-average prescribing rates of brand-name drugs said they are acting in patients' best interest.

"I do prefer certain drugs over the others based on the quality of the medication and also the benefits that the patients are going to get," said Dr. Amer Syed of Jersey City, N.J., who received more than $66,800 from companies in 2014 and whose brand-name prescribing rate was more than twice the mean of his peers in internal medicine. "My whole vision of practice is to keep the patients out of the hospital."

Dr. Felix Tarm, of Wichita, Kan., likewise prescribed more than twice the rate of brand-name drugs compared with internal medicine doctors nationally. Tarm, who is in his 70s, said he's on the verge of retiring and doesn't draw a salary from his medical practice, instead subsidizing it with the money he receives from drug companies. He said he doesn't own a pharmacy, a laboratory or an X-ray machine, all of which other doctors use to increase their incomes.

"I generally prescribe on the basis of what I think is the best drug," said Tarm, who received $11,700 in payments in 2014. "If the doctor is susceptible to being bought out by a pharmaceutical company, he can just as easily be bought out by other factors."

A third doctor, psychiatrist Alexander Pinkusovich of Brooklyn, N.Y., also prescribed a much higher proportion of brand-name drugs than his peers in 2014 while receiving more than $53,400 from drug companies. He threatened to call the district attorney if a reporter called again. "Why are you doing a fishing expedition?" he asked. "You know that I didn't do anything illegal, so good luck."

Most Doctors Take Money From Drug, Device Companies

Nationally, about three quarters of doctors across five common medical specialties received at least one payment from a company in 2014. In Nevada, that number was over 90 percent. In Vermont, it was less than 24 percent.


Notes

The five specialties are family medicine, internal medicine, cardiovascular disease, psychiatry and ophthalmology.

Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; ProPublica analysis
Credit: Sisi Wei/ProPublica

ProPublica has been tracking drug company payments to doctors since 2010 through a project known as Dollars for Docs. Our first lookup tool included only seven companies, most of which were required to report their payments publicly as a condition of legal settlements. The tool now covers every drug and device company, thanks to the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The law required all drug and device companies to publicly report their payments. The first reports became public in 2014, covering the last five months of 2013; 2014 payments were released last year.

The payments in our analysis include promotional speaking, consulting, business travel, meals, royalties and gifts, among others. We did not include research payments, although those are reported in the government's database of industry spending, which it calls Open Payments.

Separately, ProPublica has tracked patterns in Medicare's prescription drug program, known as Part D, which covers more than 39 million people. Medicare pays for at least 1 in 4 prescriptions dispensed in the country.

This new analysis matches the two data sets, looking at doctors in five large medical specialties: family medicine, internal medicine, cardiology, psychiatry and ophthalmology. We only looked at doctors who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions in Medicare Part D.

Dr. David W. Parke II, chief executive of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, suggested that many payments made to ophthalmologists don't relate to drugs they prescribe in Medicare Part D, and instead may be related to drugs administered in doctors' offices or devices and implants used in eye surgery. As a result, he said, it may be unfair to presume that industry payments are associated with prescribing in Part D.

Still, he said, ProPublica's analysis points to areas that specialty societies may want to look at. "In some cases, there are very appropriate and clinically valid reasons" for doctors who are outliers in their prescribing, he said. "For others, education may very easily result in prescribing change leading to substantive savings for patients, employers and society."

Dr. Kim Allan Williams Sr., president of the American College of Cardiology, said he believes relationships between companies and doctors are circular. The more physicians learn about a new drug's "differentiating characteristics," he said, the more likely they are to prescribe it. And the more they prescribe it, the more likely they are to be selected as speakers and consultants for the company.

"That dovetails with improving your practice, and yes, you are getting paid to do it," he said.

Williams said new drugs are, at least in part, responsible for a significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality in the past three decades.

"If you're not making strides in this highly competitive area, if you don't have a product that's better, it's not going to fly," he said. "So the fact that there's this high relationship in cardiology [between doctors and companies] may in fact be driving the progress that we're making."

ProPublica deputy data editor Olga Pierce contributed to this report, which was produced as part of a partnership between ProPublica and NPR.

Does your doctor accept payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies? Find out using Dollars for Docs.



http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/16/470648340/medicare-to-experiment-with-tying-drug-costs-to-effectiveness

Medicare To Experiment With Tying Drug Costs to Effectiveness
JULIE APPLEBY
March 16, 20169:39 AM ET

Photograph -- Medicare wants to experiment with tying the prices it pays for medication to effectiveness. iStockphoto


Aetna and Cigna inked deals last month with drug maker Novartis that offer the insurers rebates tied to how well a pricey new heart failure drug works to cut hospitalizations and deaths. If the $4,500-a-year drug meets targets, the rebate goes down. Doesn't work so well? The insurers get a bigger payment.

In another approach, pharmacy benefit firm Express Scripts this year began paying drug makers a special negotiated rate for some cancer drugs. The goal is to reward the use of medicines that are most effective for certain cancers.

Dubbed "value-based pricing," these are the kind of private-sector efforts the Obama administration hopes to borrow to rein in drug prices for Medicare.

The results could lead to a profound shift in how the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spends $20 billion a year for drugs under Part B, which are those given through doctors' offices and hospital outpatient centers. Many cancer treatments are provided that way, as are some treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration and other medical conditions.

Under a proposed rule, different methods would be tried in selected geographic areas over a five-year test period. Some of these experiments would begin this year, with others added in 2017. The proposal faces two months of public comment.

"The goal is to test whether alternative approaches will lead to better value," said Patrick Conway, chief medical officer for CMS, in announcing the proposal March 8.

"There is no perfect payment system, they all have upsides and downsides," said Dan Mendelson of consulting firm Avalere Health, who lauded Medicare for considering new ways to pay even as he cautioned that it must be done carefully. "What we don't want to do is create a world where doctors only prescribe the cheapest stuff even if not in the interest of the patient."

Here are four concepts the government is investigating:

Cut add-on fees for doctors and outpatient centers.

Many drugs covered under Medicare Part B are first purchased by a physician office or outpatient center, then dispensed to patients. Once billed, Medicare pays the health care provider the average sales price plus 6 percent for costs associated with the purchase and storage of the medications. For example, a doctor or clinic would receive an add-on fee of $6 when a $100 drug is purchased, or $300 for a $5,000 treatment.

In the private sector, that practice – called "buy and bill" – is being reduced.

Instead, specialty pharmacies, often connected with pharmacy benefit management companies, purchase the drugs and deliver them to doctors' offices. The management companies, paid by insurers for their services, negotiate prices with drug makers.

But the buy-and-bill approach still dominates Medicare Part B.

Oncology specialists and other proponents say add-on fees are an important revenue source needed to keep such centers open. But critics fear they encourage use of higher-cost drugs when equally effective products could be had for less. They also say the fees reward larger practices and centers that buy drugs at advantageous prices.

To counter that possibility, CMS would change the current reimbursement formula, cutting the add-on portion to 2.5 percent of the average sales price.

Recent industry surveys show that larger practices have resisted moving away from buy and bill. Smaller ones with less bargaining clout favor that. Drug makers and some physician specialty groups oppose this part of Medicare's proposal, but patient advocacy groups express mild support mixed with caution.

Level payments.

In the private sector, insurers sometimes set caps on payments for services patients generally can shop around for, such as a hip or knee replacement or colonoscopies. The California Public Employees Retirement System insurance plans, for example, saw that the cost of joint replacements varied widely among hospitals, then set a cap of $30,000 for a joint replacement. If patients chose hospitals that charged more, they had to pay the difference. The move was credited with saving millions in its first two years. Most of it came from the more-expensive hospitals lowering prices.

Medicare plans to apply this model to its payments to doctors and outpatient centers for some categories of medicines. For example, it might select one price for all injectable treatments for knee pain caused by osteoarthritis. The same rate would be paid, even when centers use higher-cost products.

The question is how to set that price. While asking for comments, Medicare suggested a variety of options, including the average price for drugs in a category, the price of the most clinically effective drug or a rate developed some other way.

Medicare's proposal would apply to some prescription medications, but not procedures. And unlike most private-sector models, Medicare patients who get drugs above a benchmark cost could not be billed for the difference. The goal is not to encourage patients to change drugs. Instead, Medicare said it will test whether grouping similar drugs into a single payment rate will give physicians incentives to use "products that provide the most value for the patient."

Tie payments to effectiveness.

Under Medicare's proposal, drug makers would agree to offer rebates that link the final price of their products results in patients. Just what those results would be – improved health, fewer hospitalizations or some other measure – would be spelled out up front. There are more than 300 such "risk-sharing" agreements currently in place in the private sector, according to a University of Washington School of Pharmacy database.

In a related test, Medicare would adopt an approach similar to that used by Express Scripts, varying the amount of payment based on a patient's condition. Drugs are often approved for more than one condition – say, two different types of cancers – but may be more effective at treating one than the other. Under the proposal, Medicare would pay a physician less when a drug is less effective on that cancer.

Skeptics say the process can be complex, and savings might be eaten up by administrative costs or disagreements over whether drugs have met effectiveness targets. Moreover, these private sector efforts are so new that detailed results are not yet available.

Meanwhile, a report out Tuesday from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review looked at similar efforts internationally. It found that such "indication-specific" pricing holds some promise, but cautioned that administrative complexity and other challenges are significant.

Cut patients' out-of-pocket costs.

To get people to take essential medications such as statins after a heart attack, some insurers, including Aetna, have reduced or eliminated patient copayments. Other insurers have experimented with similar incentives for other conditions, such as asthma or diabetes. They generally found that reduced payments make patients more likely to continue taking their medications.

In Medicare Part B, patients are responsible for 20 percent of the cost of their drugs unless they have a supplemental insurance policy that covers such copayments. Medicare proposes to cut or eliminate those payments for certain drugs considered most effective or valuable.

Lower copayments might affect what doctors prescribe and could encourage patients to stay on needed treatments. Medicare itself would make up the difference, picking up the tab for the reduced or eliminated patient payment.

Medicare is soliciting suggestions in its public comment phase as to which drugs might be the best candidates for the test.