April 1 & 2, 2016


News Clips For The Day


https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-york-poised-raise-minimum-wage-15-044101837--finance.html

California, New York poised to raise minimum wage to $15
Alison Noon and Jonathan j. Cooper, Associated Press,Associated Press
April 1, 2016


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California and New York are poised to become the highest-paid minimum-wage states in the nation after their governors each reached deals with lawmakers to raise the lowest amount a worker can be paid to a record-shattering $15 an hour.

California Gov. Jerry Brown said he will sign a new minimum-wage bill Monday after it passed the Legislature on Thursday. Across the country in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo reached a tentative deal late Thursday with top lawmakers to raise the state's base wage.

The actions in two of the country's most labor-friendly states come as the income divide has emerged as a key issue nationwide in a presidential election year. President Barack Obama, who first proposed an increase to the $7.25 federal minimum wage in 2013, applauded the states' actions and called on the Republican-controlled Congress to "keep up with the rest of the country."

"California takes a massive leap forward today in the fight to rebalance our nation's economy," said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.

California's current $10-an-hour minimum wage is tied with Massachusetts for the highest among states. Only Washington, D.C., at $10.50 per hour is higher. New York's minimum wage is $9.

Democrats who control both legislative chambers in California hailed the increase as a boon to more than 2 million workers. Brown, also a Democrat, said it proves the nation's most populous state can get things done and help people get ahead.

But Republicans echoed fears from business owners and economists that California's annual increases — eventually tied to inflation — will compound the state's image as hostile to business.

Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno said the increase would force small-business owners to make layoffs "with tears in their eyes."

The increases would start with a boost from $10 to $10.50 on Jan. 1. Businesses with 25 or fewer employees would have an extra year to comply. Increases of $1 an hour would come every January until 2022. The governor could delay increases in times of budgetary or economic downturns.

The tentative deal reached by New York officials would be phased in regionally in the nation's fourth-largest state. It also would eventually affect more than 2 million workers.

In New York City, the wage would increase to $15 by the end of 2018, though businesses with fewer than 10 employees would get an extra year. In the suburbs of Long Island and Westchester County, the wage would rise to $15 by the end of 2022. The increases are even more drawn out upstate, where the wage would hit $12.50 in 2021, then increase to $15 based on an undetermined schedule.

"This minimum wage increase will be of national significance," Cuomo, the Democratic governor, told reporters. "It's raising the minimum wage in a way that's responsible."

Cuomo had initially proposed a simpler phase-in: three years in New York City and six years elsewhere. The more gradual, nuanced approach was the result of negotiations with Senate Republicans who worried such a sharp increase would devastate businesses, particularly in the upstate region's more fragile economy.

Economists have long debated the impact of a higher minimum wage. Some studies have found that higher wages contributed to job cuts, while others found little effect on hiring because employers could absorb the costs or pass them along to customers.

The Congressional Budget Office conducted an analysis in 2014 finding both benefits and trade-offs with an increase. A higher minimum wage would generally raise incomes and lift people above the poverty line, but it also would lead to a wave of job losses for some low-income workers.

The non-partisan agency examined the prospect of raising the national minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25. It would raise incomes by a net of $17 billion for families below or relatively close to the poverty line. But it would cost 500,000 jobs, a 0.3 percent decline in total employment.

In California, Brown was previously reluctant to raise the base wage. He negotiated the deal with labor unions to head off competing November ballot initiatives that would have imposed swifter increases without some of the safeguards included in the legislation. The governor now says California's fast-growing economy can absorb the raises without the problems predicted by opponents.

About 2.2 million Californians now earn the minimum wage. The University of California, Berkeley, Center for Labor Research and Education projected that pay would rise for 5.6 million Californians by an average of 24 percent. More than a third of the affected workers are parents.

Latinos would benefit most because they hold a disproportionate number of low-wage jobs, the researchers said.

The right-leaning American Action Forum countered with its own projection that the increases would slow the rate of job growth, potentially costing the state nearly 700,000 jobs over the next decade.

The increases are expected to eventually cost California taxpayers an additional $3.6 billion annually for higher government employee pay.

In New York, the tentative deal also includes middle-class state income tax cuts starting in 2018. The cut would apply to New Yorkers with incomes between $40,000 and $300,000 and rates that currently range from 6.45 percent to 6.65 percent starting in 2018. The rates would gradually drop to 5.5 percent by 2025.

Cuomo administration officials estimate the lower tax rates will save more than 4 million filers nearly $6.6 billion in the first four years, with annual savings reaching $4.2 billion by 2025.

Associated Press writers Don Thompson in Sacramento and David Klepper and Michael Virtanen in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.



“California and New York are poised to become the highest-paid minimum-wage states in the nation after their governors each reached deals with lawmakers to raise the lowest amount a worker can be paid to a record-shattering $15 an hour. …. "This minimum wage increase will be of national significance," Cuomo, the Democratic governor, told reporters. "It's raising the minimum wage in a way that's responsible." Cuomo had initially proposed a simpler phase-in: three years in New York City and six years elsewhere. The more gradual, nuanced approach was the result of negotiations with Senate Republicans who worried such a sharp increase would devastate businesses, particularly in the upstate region's more fragile economy. …. The actions in two of the country's most labor-friendly states come as the income divide has emerged as a key issue nationwide in a presidential election year. President Barack Obama, who first proposed an increase to the $7.25 federal minimum wage in 2013, applauded the states' actions and called on the Republican-controlled Congress to "keep up with the rest of the country." "California takes a massive leap forward today in the fight to rebalance our nation's economy," said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.” …. The Congressional Budget Office conducted an analysis in 2014 finding both benefits and trade-offs with an increase. A higher minimum wage would generally raise incomes and lift people above the poverty line, but it also would lead to a wave of job losses for some low-income workers. …. In California, Brown was previously reluctant to raise the base wage. He negotiated the deal with labor unions to head off competing November ballot initiatives that would have imposed swifter increases without some of the safeguards included in the legislation. The governor now says California's fast-growing economy can absorb the raises without the problems predicted by opponents. …. In New York, the tentative deal also includes middle-class state income tax cuts starting in 2018. The cut would apply to New Yorkers with incomes between $40,000 and $300,000 and rates that currently range from 6.45 percent to 6.65 percent starting in 2018. The rates would gradually drop to 5.5 percent by 2025.”


“Balancing the economy” rather than “balancing the budget” (by cutting spending on all social programs, including Social Security.) This is why I trust and love the Democratic Party – because, relatively speaking at least, they are “democratic.” They seek to HELP rather than reap financial benefits from “the people.” Slowly, but progressively, we are coming around to becoming a more decent society. I am encouraged. Now if we can refrain from electing a crude, bullying and greedy man as our president that will be even better.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/31/hero-lawmaker-urges-colleagues-to-stop-saying-physical-when-they-mean-fiscal/?postshare=9931459474066746&tid=ss_fb

Hero lawmaker urges colleagues to stop saying ‘physical’ when they mean ‘fiscal’
By Sarah Larimer
March 31, 2016


Okay, I'm sure that a ton of important stuff is happening in Missouri state government these days.

But I think we can all agree that nothing is more important than a resolution offered earlier this month by Rep. Tracy McCreery (D), who would really love it if her colleagues in the Missouri House of Representatives stopped saying "physical" when they totally mean "fiscal."

Eternal thanks to the Riverfront Times for its coverage of H.R. 1220, which begins: "WHEREAS, on occasion, members of the Missouri House of Representatives have used the word 'physical' instead of 'fiscal' when referring to fiscal matters including, but not limited to, fiscal review and fiscal notes; and …"

Yeah. You get the gist, right?

It's just heroic stuff, and I, for one, applaud the effort.

"I feel like the word 'fiscal' is just very critical to doing our job properly," McCreery told The Washington Post. "And I feel like that's a word that we should be cognizant of pronouncing correctly."

Seems fair!

You guys. (Missouri House of Representatives)

This is McCreery's first full term in the Missouri House. The state's legislative session started in January, and her resolution was filed in March.

What I'm saying is, she waited months before offering this thing.

"I made it almost an entire quarter," she said, "which I think shows great restraint."

The "fiscal"/"physical" mispronunciations, which would happen during budget discussions, weren't a rare occurrence, said McCreery, who represents District 88, in the St. Louis suburbs.

She noticed it a lot — clear and obvious pronunciation violations.

"I thought, you know, there are a lot of different ways to approach things like this," she said, "and I thought it would be best just to sort of have fun with it rather than sitting there cringing every time I hear a word like that mispronounced."

McCreery said she has gotten a few suggestions on what mistakes to tackle next, but she said, there is one pronunciation-related issue on which she will not be taking an official position: the always divisive "Missou-ree" vs. "Missou-rah" debate.

"That would be like the third rail in this state, is to start a war over how to pronounce the name of the state," McCreery said. "So, I will leave that for people to decide on their own."

h/t: Riverfront Times


Sarah Larimer is a general assignment reporter for the Washington Post.



“But I think we can all agree that nothing is more important than a resolution offered earlier this month by Rep. Tracy McCreery (D), who would really love it if her colleagues in the Missouri House of Representatives stopped saying "physical" when they totally mean "fiscal." Eternal thanks to the Riverfront Times for its coverage of H.R. 1220, which begins: "WHEREAS, on occasion, members of the Missouri House of Representatives have used the word 'physical' instead of 'fiscal' when referring to fiscal matters including, but not limited to, fiscal review and fiscal notes; and …’ Yeah. You get the gist, right? It's just heroic stuff, and I, for one, applaud the effort. …. This is McCreery's first full term in the Missouri House. The state's legislative session started in January, and her resolution was filed in March. What I'm saying is, she waited months before offering this thing. "I made it almost an entire quarter," she said, "which I think shows great restraint."


I will say only one thing about the US. Most of us are from truly “humble” backgrounds from which “an education” is solely for getting a better job, and does NOT involve putting the wedge of personal and social change between us and our family/friends/neighbors. To us, in too many cases, the mind is simply not open widely enough to put in new information or even to use the info we do have fully. Using new information can lead to unconventional ideas which offend people. Ethically based religions -- rather than dogmatic and highly emotional ones -- are the result of learning, using our knowledge and having the courage to do so openly. Living among humans is a dangerous thing.

Hence, we have congress members who don’t know how to speak good English. Of course some of us will chastise foreigners on the bus for not speaking understandable English. We’re not only, to a great degree, ignorant, but capable of being vicious to outsiders. The driver of a bus I was on some thirty years ago refused a Chinese woman entry because she didn’t have the right fare and wasn’t able to understand what he told her. He then said that she understands English perfectly well, but just wants to avoid paying the fare.

A lot of the way we are about words comes from being taught to spell and read by the “see say” method (initiated in the 1950s among education specialists to increase children’s reading speed), rather than by analyzing the spelling to produce the proper pronunciation, understanding, and ability to compare root words to an unfamiliar one so that we can make a darned good guess even before we look it up in a dictionary (or nowadays, on Google). That teaching method produces not only an inability to spell and pronounce our native language intuitively, but to understand it as well.

It makes me sad. We’re very simple-minded people these days. Unfortunately, things that appear to be “misspellings” are actually totally unrelated words in their own right. My Microsoft Word program infuriates me by targeting totally proper words as being spelled or used wrong. I just look it up on Google in case I really have misused it, and then hit “Add to dictionary” when I verify it.

Atheletic/athletic, nucular/nuclear, physical/fiscal and of course some words that are ethnically sensitive come to mind: axt/asked, for instance. The blacks have some excuse for that because their speech contains leftovers from African languages, especially the well-known “Geechee and Gullah” patterns of eastern NC, SC, FL and GA. Those people were brought over to cultivate rice in those lowland areas, since they came from a rice-based cultural tradition and were experts on the techniques. They also make some beautiful and distinctive baskets, for instance a wide, flat one used to throw rice up in the air and catch it as a means of loosening the chaff.

See “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnowing, Winnowing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

“Wind winnowing is an agricultural method developed by ancient cultures for separating grain from chaff. It is also used to remove weevils or other pests from stored grain. Threshing, the loosening of grain or seeds from the husks and straw, is the step in the chaff-removal process that comes before winnowing.

In its simplest form it involves throwing the mixture into the air so that the wind blows away the lighter chaff, while the heavier grains fall back down for recovery. Techniques included using a winnowing fan (a shaped basket shaken to raise the chaff) or using a tool (a winnowing fork or shovel) on a pile of harvested grain.

. . . .

In the Old Testament[edit]

In the Old Testament the word winnow is used in several verses in different books in the New International Version while other versions of the bible translate the action as "fan", "throw" or the separating tool as "pitchfork", "shovel", "winnowing fan", or "winnowing instrument".

. . . .

In the United States[edit]

The development of the winnowing barn allowed rice plantations in South Carolina to increase their yields dramatically.


Additional information just for fun:

http://gullahgeecheecorridor.org/index.php/component/users/?view=login

A message from Congress by Congressman James E. Clyburn
“We must protect and preserve Gullah Geechee Culture.”

One of my proudest achievements in the Congress was authoring the legislation that established the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor and created a commission to help federal, state, and local authorities manage the Corridor and its assets. It took more than seven years of work to get the bill passed into law, but today the commission is working hard on efforts to preserve and promote the nearly 400-year history of Gullah Geechee culture that is the core purpose of my initiative. The sites, sounds and tastes of Gullah Geechee culture have been slowly vanishing along the coasts of North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Stories and traditions of this fusion of African and European cultures brought long ago to these shores have been slipping away along with the marsh and sand that are disappearing because of the encroachment of developments and the pressures to assimilate into the "modern" world.

Small enclaves of “Gullah,” in the Carolinas, and "Geechee," in Georgia and Florida, remain. There you find houses trimmed in indigo, which were -- and may still be -- believed to ward off evil spirits. There you hear talk of life before the"cumyas,"those who are recent arrivals to the area and the problems brought by the "benyas,"those whose roots can be traced back to plantation life. There you listen to traditional spirituals like "Kumbaya" (come by here) that most Christians today continue to sing, although often in more familiar dialect. There you watch nimble hands weave gorgeous sweet grass baskets with a skill that has been handed down for generations. There you can enjoy the aroma and tastes of "hoppin' john," sweet potato pie, or benne wafers, all Gullah/Geechee specialties that have found their way into our modern culture.



TRUMP AND SCOTLAND


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-scottish-homeland-bewildered-by-his-presidential-campaign/

Trump's ancestral homeland bewildered by his presidential campaign
By MARK PHILLIPS CBS NEWS
March 31, 2016, 7:14 PM

Photograph -- phillipstrumpsroots.png, Donald Trump visits his mother's childhood home on the isle of Lewis in Scotland CBS NEWS
Play VIDEO -- Rivals pounce on Donald Trump after abortion comments
Play VIDEO -- Donald Trump: Touch my hair -- it's real


STORNOWAY, Scotland --On the path to the Republican nomination, 19 of 29 states have gone toDonald Trump. But we wondered if "The Donald" is "The One" in the old sod.

There are plenty of reasons for singing laments about the hard life up on the Isle of Lewis, off Scotland's wild northwest coast.

But in the town of Stornoway, the boys in the pub have got a new lament -- Donald Trump.

They did meet Donald Trump once, when he paid a brief visit to Lewis. He stopped at the house his mother Mary Anne MacLeod grew up in before she left for New York seven decades ago.

At the time, Trump said he was "just happy to be back here." The happiness, though, isn't mutual.

Local author Ian Stephen summed up the islanders' attitude toward Trump's run for president. "There is this irrational sense of guilt. What have we spawned?"

Stephen says the islanders don't have that traditional feel-good connection with Donald Trump -- not the way JFK did with his ancestral home in Ireland, or that Ronald Reagan also had.

Even Barack Obama -- Irish on his mother's side, was well-received.

But with Trump, they ask themselves a question. "What the hell is our Donald up to now?"

It's not just his controversial statements that have the people of Lewis ducking for cover. It's his style. Boastful, showy, self-promotion doesn't play well on Lewis, the home of quiet, Scottish Presbyterian reserve.

"People don't blow their own trumpets here. They're very modest," said Gerry Blane, a guitarist in a local band.

There are similarities, though. The hair, for one, seems to go back through his mother Mary to the MacLeod clan. In fact there's a joke on the isle of Lewis that it's all about the local wind.

"That northeaster sweeping for years and years and years, that has obviously left that wave in the hair, which had genetically somehow come down through the generations to Donald," Stephen explained.

They're doing what they've always done when a storm blows up on the remote island -- finding refuge in friendship, music, and a sense of humor.

© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Mark Phillips

Mark Phillips returned to the CBS News London bureau as a correspondent in 1993. He has covered many major stories since then, including the war in the Balkans, the death of Princess Diana and the weapons inspection conflicts in Iraq.


Brits in general don’t like Trump -- not only because to them he is arrogant (I must say, though, many US born people are, to some degree at least, arrogant, possibly including myself since I do like to speak my mind -- but because they think he is dangerous. They remember the bombings of London and other regions by Adolph Hitler, and anyone who resembles him is shocking and unacceptable. Within the last six months or so a large number of Brits signed a petition to get Trump declared persona non grata, and banned from going on British soil – which includes his Scottish island!


THE ART OF POLITICAL SPEECH -- FOUR ARTICLES


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-trump-confusing-everyone-on-purpose/

Is Donald Trump confusing everyone on purpose?
By WILL RAHN CBS NEWS
April 1, 2016, 5:47 AM

Play VIDEO -- Donald Trump's Scottish homeland unamused by his campaign
Play VIDEO -- Highlights: Ben Carson explains his endorsement of Donald Trump


Donald Trump is trying to confuse us.

Or maybe not. Maybe he's just perpetually confused himself. But it's evident by now that Trump not only has a habit of contradicting himself, but of delivering totally different statements within seconds or minutes of each other.

This is not a new trick. When pressed on a question they don't want to answer, normally succinct politicians can revert to speaking in pure gobbledygook because it makes the press less likely to report what they say. Reporters like a nice, clean quote; word salads do not make for good copy.

This was a truth Dwight Eisenhower knew well. "[T]he language of his press conferences was notoriously vague," the historian Fred Greenstein once noted. And it was vague for a reason -- he wanted to leave journalists unsure of what he had just said.

One great example came during the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis, in which Taiwan and the People's Republic of China nearly went to war over small islands claimed by both nations. Jim Haggerty, Eisenhower's press secretary, warned the president that he would likely be asked how the U.S. would respond if the islands were invaded from the mainland. There was no good answer to the question -- and a wrong one could trigger a major war -- yet Eisenhower was unconcerned.

"Don't worry, Jim" Eisenhower responded. "If that question comes up, I'll just confuse them."

And confuse them he did; the eventual answer was both long-winded and obtuse. Eisenhower basically gave a baffling non-answer suggesting that he knew a lot about war and that he'd pray about it. American voters were reassured, and Beijing was left, as Greenstein wrote, "uncertain what price it would pay" for taking the islands.

The stakes for Trump are considerably lower, but the vague non-answer answer is a rhetorical trick he keeps reverting to. And while he's considerably less eloquent than Eisenhower in his responses, the effect is the same: the press is left unsure of what he meant, or even whether he meant anything at all.

"Did he just announce a new policy?" we ask ourselves. "Did he misspeak? Reverse himself? Has he ever considered this question before?" The result is that objective reporters, wary of editorializing, produce stories that are really just transcripts of what Trump just said. Trump's message, whatever it may be, is then transmitted to the larger public, and they can make of it what they will.

We've seen at least two examples of Trump doing this in the past week alone. The first happened on Tuesday, when he was pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about tweeting out an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz.

First, Trump insisted he thought it was a nice photo of Mrs. Cruz. Then he said that Cruz had "started it" because an anti-Trump's group had mailed out a picture of a scantily -clad Mrs. Trump. Then Trump blamed people close to Mitt Romney before bragging about how successful his wife had been as a model.

"Can you just leave wives out of this?" Anderson asked, finally.

"Absolutely," Trump agreed, before launching into another spiel about how Cruz had started it, and that he didn't want to talk about it, and that we should be talking about trade deals instead.

"Can you say tonight, though, no more such talk about wives?" Anderson followed-up.

"Oh, absolutely," Trump said. "I don't want to talk about that."

That was, what, three different answers to the same question? First he didn't insult her, then maybe he did. But only because someone else had insulted his wife, then there was something about Romney, then something about how successful his wife was as a model, then something about China, and then finally a promise to stop insulting Heidi Cruz's appearance.

Seven answers. Oh, wait, I forgot he also hinted that Ted Cruz had illegally coordinated with an outside super PAC. Eight answers.

A day later, Trump tussled with MSNBC's Chris Matthews about some of the Republican front-runner's statements about nuclear weapons. Matthews asked why Trump refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in otherwise conventional conflicts; Trump responded by asking Matthews why he wouldn't use nukes.

Trump tried to pivot to NATO, to the Iraq War. They traded hypotheticals. Matthews asked if Trump would at least say he wouldn't use nuclear weapons in Europe.

"Just say it: 'I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe,'" Matthews pushed.

Trump refused, insisting that he wouldn't take "any cards off the table."

"Okay," Matthews responded.

Then Trump seemingly reversed himself, before quickly reversing back.

"I'm not going to use nuclear," Trump said, "but I'm not taking any cards off the table."

Ask yourself: did Trump just pledge to never use nuclear weapons, to never use nuclear weapons in Europe, or did he say that he was open to using nuclear weapons anywhere, including Europe?

The media mostly ran with the latter. But should he ever feel he needs to, Trump will surely insist he meant the former.

The truth, in both cases, is that Trump attracted a lot of coverage for saying things that were both a) incendiary and b) utterly meaningless and incomprehensible. And he does this all the time.

Perhaps the single best example is when Ben Carson endorsed him at a press conference earlier this month. Carson said he believed that there were two Trumps -- the insult-prone showman we're all familiar with and a "cerebral" one we don't.

Trump, at first, agreed. "There are two Donald Trumps," he said, when asked about Carson's comments.

A few minutes later, at the same press conference, to the same group of reporters, Trump didn't: "I don't think there's two Donald Trumps. There's one Donald Trump."

It's very difficult to fact-check a sentence containing two contradictory statements, or decipher meaning from nothingness, particularly when the contradictions and meaningless statements come at such a dizzying pace. It's impossible to know how many Donald Trumps are lurking around in Donald Trump's head.

So intentionally or not, Trump has confused us. We have no real idea what policies he would embrace in the general election, let alone as president. And we have no way of knowing what he sincerely believes at any given moment and what he'll abandon with his next breath, even when it comes to his bedrock issues like immigration and trade.

Is this all evidence of sophisticated, Eisenhower-esque guile on the part of Trump, or is he just thinking out loud, inventing answers to questions he's never considered as he goes along? I'd wager it's a bit of both -- Trump is, if nothing else, a studied manipulator of the media. He's also not one who's shown any kind of natural understanding of the nuances of policy, a fact that many of his supporters would readily admit. He sells himself as a big picture guy, someone who understands elemental truths that the eggheads and party hacks always miss.

There is, however, at least one crucial difference between Eisenhower's vagueness and Trump's. Ike confused the press in a way that could still reassure the public; Trump, if the latest general election polls are any indication, has only figured out half that equation.



“Donald Trump is trying to confuse us. Or maybe not. Maybe he's just perpetually confused himself. But it's evident by now that Trump not only has a habit of contradicting himself, but of delivering totally different statements within seconds or minutes of each other. …. Jim Haggerty, Eisenhower's press secretary, warned the president that he would likely be asked how the U.S. would respond if the islands were invaded from the mainland. There was no good answer to the question -- and a wrong one could trigger a major war -- yet Eisenhower was unconcerned. "Don't worry, Jim" Eisenhower responded. "If that question comes up, I'll just confuse them."


The great comic genius Sid Caesar was known for his use, to hilarious effect, of “double talk.” Other classic comedians use it too. Politicians down through the years have done a version of it, and they all have a memorized spiel that, when a hostile question comes their way, they simply give one of their canned speeches. Their speeches also tend to bear a strong resemblance to those of others within their party.

The Republicans, according to a newspaper article in the last year or so, even hold lessons on what to say and how to say it. They gather for the sole purpose of practicing their skills in places like a small town diner, where they answer likely questions and practice their body language, etc. That’s how they all get answers like “I’m pro-life,” even though a couple of years earlier they had voted for women’s right to choose; likewise, with those Republicans who ALL profess that global warming (now “climate change”) is simply not real. Our Florida governor had one of the best answers last year: “I’m not a scientist!”

When I first heard about those periodic get togethers to practice their skills and talking points, I was struck by the total insincerity of the whole thing, but businesses do have such sessions for their up and coming young supervisors. That’s where things like falling backwards, so that their peer who is standing behind them will catch them, have come into being. It’s supposed to promote trust within the company. Decent hiring and promotion practices would work better, I think. That would breed genuine worker loyalty.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/02/14/sid_caesar_how_the_late_comedian_learned_double_talk_mimicking_the_sound.html

How Sid Caesar Learned Double-Talk
By Ben Zimmer
FEB. 14 2014 9:47 AM

Photograph -- The great Sid Caesar in 2006.
Videos -- caesar1_1, caesar2_1, caesar3_1

The obituaries for the great comic Sid Caesar invariably mention his proficiency in "double-talk," mimicking the sounds (but not the sense) of foreign languages. It turns out that this was a talent Caesar had cultivated ever since he was a boy clearing tables at his father's restaurant in multi-ethnic Yonkers.

The New York Times:

He could seem eloquent even when his words were total gibberish: Among his gifts was the ability to mimic the sounds and cadences of foreign languages he didn’t actually speak.

Reuters:

Some of Caesar's most popular bits were built around pompous or outlandish characters—such as Professor von Votsisnehm—in which he spoke in a thick accent or mimicked foreign languages in comic but convincing gibberish.

"He was the ultimate, he was the very best sketch artist and comedian that ever existed," [Carl] Reiner said of his friend. "His ability to double talk every language known to man was impeccable."

One of his virtuosic double-talk performances is captured on YouTube—in the space of five minutes he moves from fake French to fake German to fake Italian to fake Japanese:

So how did Caesar get to be so good at double-talk? He goes into great detail in his memoir, Caesar's Hours: My Life in Comedy, with Love and Laughter:

While I greatly admired Caesar's chops in double-talk, I always felt he was at his funniest when he said hardly anything at all.

A version of this post appeared on Language Log.

Ben Zimmer is the executive editor of Vocabulary.com and the Visual Thesaurus, and language columnist for the Wall Street Journal.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-explains-his-response-to-trump-remarks-on-abortion/

Sanders: Can't respond to "every moronic statement made by Donald Trump"
CBS NEWS
April 1, 2016, 12:16 PM

Play video -- CBS Interview this morning, 6:47 minutes
Play Video -- Clinton fires back at Sanders over fossil fuel money claim


Bernie Sanders referred broadly to Donald Trump's remarks about abortion as "moronic" and said Thursday Hillary Clinton had taken his remarks out of context.

During an interview with CBSN, anchor Josh Elliott asked Sanders for his response to a clip of Clinton at an appearance Thursday in New York .

"Senator Sanders agreed that Donald Trump's comments [on abortion] were shameful. But then he said they were a distraction from...'a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America.' To me, this is a serious issue," Clinton said at State University of New York at Purchase.

Sanders pointed to his 100 percent pro-choice voting record and then explained, "What she was doing is taking me out of context. If you were going to ask me about another dumb, absurd, stupid remark made by Donald Trump, I cannot spend my entire life responding to every moronic statement made by Donald Trump."

On Wednesday, Sanders had opined that "to punish a woman for having an abortion is beyond comprehension." He didn't directly call Trump's remarks an outright "distraction" but suggested that the media amplifies "every stupid remark" without covering his overall positions.

"Any stupid, absurd remark made by Donald Trump becomes the story of the week," Sanders had said Wednesday. "Maybe, just maybe, we might want to have a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America."



"Any stupid, absurd remark made by Donald Trump becomes the story of the week," Sanders had said Wednesday. "Maybe, just maybe, we might want to have a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America."


Trump really is getting a beating lately, but I’m enjoying it thoroughly. If the Republicans hadn’t consistently cultivated the very ignorant, racist, anti-intellectual and anti-everything else crowd down through the last few decades by their “dog whistle” style political campaigning, they wouldn’t have such an uncomfortable “leader” as Trump. The Republicans not only are aware that he is a dangerous man, but are finding him an intense embarrassment. Unfortunately, I believe that Trump doesn’t know why, or perhaps he simply doesn’t care. Maybe he thinks that being elected president would be a good chance to be the next emperor, and as such he can say or do any damn thing he wants to!!


AMERICA FIRST 2016


http://www.npr.org/2016/04/01/472633800/4-things-to-know-about-donald-trumps-foreign-policy-approach

4 Things To Know About Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Approach
Heard on Morning Edition
SCOTT HORSLEY
April 1, 20165:00 AM ET

Photograph -- Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign stop Tuesday in Janesville, Wis. Trump's approach to foreign policy reflects his perception that for the most part, the U.S. gets a raw deal.
Nam Y. Huh/AP


In recent days, Donald Trump has given a series of in-depth interviews shedding some light on what he means by the policy he calls "America First." The interviews are giving a clearer picture of the Republican presidential hopeful's approach to foreign policy.

Here are four things to know about Donald Trump's foreign policy:

1. It's unpredictable ... by design.

Reporters covering Donald Trump never know what he'll say or do next. And that's the way he likes it. Trump thinks it's an advantage for the United States to keep foreign leaders guessing.

"I always say we have to be unpredictable," Trump told the Washington Post editorial board. "We're totally predictable. And predictable is bad."

Trump has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also likes to confound expectations. Putin's invasion of Crimea and his recent military intervention in Syria both took international observers by surprise. That can be an important element of military success. Trump, for instance, refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in battling ISIS in Europe or the Middle East.

"I would never take any of my cards off the table," Trump said in a town hall meeting on MSNBC.

But critics warn the approach can be taken too far.

"The unpredictability shifts into unreliability. Then you pay a high price for that," says Peter Feaver, who worked for the National Security Council under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

"We could become untrustworthy," Feaver says. "And we would squander what has been the United States' great advantage over the last 25 years, which is while other countries complain about the United States, they basically prefer the United States to be the global leader than any other possible candidate."

2. It's all about the deal.

Speaking to a pro-Israel group, Trump likened talks with the Palestinians to the kind of business negotiation he's famous for.

"I know about deal-making," Trump said. "That's what I do. I wrote The Art of the Deal."

Indeed, reporters from The New York Times who conducted a lengthy interview about foreign policy with Trump concluded that he approaches "almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation."

For the most part, Trump thinks the United States has been getting the bad end of the bargain.

"You look at what the world is doing to us at every level, whether it's militarily or in trade or so many other levels, the world is taking advantage of the United States," Trump told CNN. "And it's driving us into literally being a third-world nation."

It's not surprising that someone who built his business fortune through deal-making would lean on that experience in foreign affairs. But critics say Trump is short-sighted in approaching each encounter as a zero-sum game, where a gain for China, for example, is automatically a loss for the United States.

"He fails to realize that there are a lot of win-win agreements in the world," says Daniel Drezner of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. "By threatening to drive harder bargains, he might manage to eke out a slightly larger share of the pie. But he also threatens to blow up that pie in the process."

3. There's more overlap than you might think with President Obama.

Some of Trump's foreign policy pronouncements have a familiar ring, although he tends to say loudly what others only whisper.

"You have countries in NATO that are getting a free ride," Trump complained on CNN. "It's very unfair. The United States cannot afford to be the policeman of the world anymore, folks. We have to rebuild our own country."

President Obama and his defense secretaries have also pressed NATO members to spend more on their own defense. And Obama has complained that countries in the Middle East are all too willing to have the U.S. fight their battles for them.

"Perhaps most surprisingly is the extent to which [Trump] overlaps with some of President Obama's positions," Feaver says. "Where there's a sharp difference, of course, is that President Obama wanted to do less in the Middle East in order to do more in Asia. And Trump is talking about doing less in the Middle East and less in Asia."

Indeed, Trump has threatened to withdraw U.S. forces from Japan and South Korea, unless those countries agree to cover a much larger share of the cost.

4. Critics say he's ill-informed.

Trump has recently named a handful of his foreign policy advisers, but insists he also keeps his own counsel. "I understand this stuff," Trump told CNN. "I mean, I really do understand this stuff."

Many foreign policy practitioners disagree. More than 100 Republican national security experts signed an open letter challenging Trump's policy positions and his competence.

One of them, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, warned in a separate essay that the billionaire businessman is "singularly unqualifed to be commander in chief."

"It's just a stunning degree of ignorance this guy has," says Drezner, another signer. "Fifteen years ago, people were talking about whether George W. Bush knew enough about foreign policy when he became president. George W. Bush is George Kennan compared to Donald Trump," he said, referring to the scholarly Cold War diplomat.

Even the name Trump has given to his brand of foreign policy alarms some observers. Trump has embraced the label "America First," a slogan that was also used by isolationists in the ill-fated effort to keep America out of World War II.



“But critics say Trump is short-sighted in approaching each encounter as a zero-sum game, where a gain for China, for example, is automatically a loss for the United States. "He fails to realize that there are a lot of win-win agreements in the world," says Daniel Drezner of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. "By threatening to drive harder bargains, he might manage to eke out a slightly larger share of the pie. But he also threatens to blow up that pie in the process." …. President Obama and his defense secretaries have also pressed NATO members to spend more on their own defense. And Obama has complained that countries in the Middle East are all too willing to have the U.S. fight their battles for them. …. Trump has recently named a handful of his foreign policy advisers, but insists he also keeps his own counsel. "I understand this stuff," Trump told CNN. "I mean, I really do understand this stuff." Many foreign policy practitioners disagree. More than 100 Republican national security experts signed an open letter challenging Trump's policy positions and his competence. One of them, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, warned in a separate essay that the billionaire businessman is "singularly unqualifed to be commander in chief."


“Trump has embraced the label "America First," a slogan that was also used by isolationists in the ill-fated effort to keep America out of World War II.” This America First stuff is prevalent in the US among our more dogmatic citizens. They think we aren’t patriotic and religious enough. They love Trump.

I had several emails from a friend of mine in Gainesville whose husband is a clever man, but outrageously right wing. Typically, he handed me an Ayn Rand book to read. I told him I didn’t agree with her views. My friend has sent along to me a number of emails from him with Rightist sentiments. I finally wrote her a long email saying that I don’t want to receive that kind of material. She stopped until a month or so ago, when she sent me another one. I haven’t received as many recently, though, so I think she got the message.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/trump-view-from-south-korea-japan/index.html

Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump's nuclear comments
By Paula Hancocks, CNN
Updated 6:20 PM ET, Thu March 31, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

Related Video -- Japan's new military policy making region wary 01:44
Related Video -- US, South Korea take part in joint military exercise 04:03


Seoul (CNN)Confused, shocked, bewildered. Just a few of the words used in recent days to describe Japan and South Korea's reaction to some of Donald Trump's latest comments about the region.

The front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination stunned two of America's strongest allies with the suggestion that the U.S. military would be withdrawn from their shores, with nuclear weapons replacing them.

There are currently 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea.

What we've learned about Trump's world view

"Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper Tuesday. "We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself ... they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us."

So high was the level of concern, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe felt the need to respond publicly, saying, "whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's diplomacy."

Japan remains the only country to have had nuclear weapons used against it and has had a non-nuclear policy and pacifist constitution since the end of World War II.

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida added, "It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons."

North Korea claims to have miniaturized nuclear warheads

South Korea has a small minority who think Trump may have a point and welcome the idea of nuclear weapons.

Academic Cheong Seong-Chang from the non-profit think-tank the Sejong Institute said, "If we have nuclear weapons, we'll be in a much better position to deal with North Korea."

But his feeling is not mainstream.

Big-mouthed clown? China reacts to Donald Trump

South Korea 'a money machine'

Government reaction has been more focused on Trump's assertion that South Korea is not paying its way.

Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer earlier this year, "South Korea is a money machine but they pay us peanuts ... South Korea should pay us very substantially for protecting them."

Howls of inaccuracy came from the South Korean Foreign Ministry, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, and even the White House.

Ambassador Mark Lippert said Seoul pays for 55% of all non-personnel costs.

And former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Christopher Hill was more succinct. He told CNN, "I don't know what he's talking about but clearly neither does he."

Trump unveils foreign policy advisers

Newspaper editorials and experts alike have taken aim at Trump's comments about introducing more nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula to counter the North Korean threat.

Daniel Pinkston of Troy University said it would play into North Korea's hands.

"The hardliners in Pyongyang would just love such an outcome because if that were to occur, it would completely justify their nuclear status ... and validate Kim Jong Un's policy line as absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct," he said.

Reflecting a growing concern, Pinkston added, "Whether he wins the Republican nomination or not, or whether he is elected president or not, even at this stage, he is already doing damage to the U.S. reputation internationally. And damaging U.S. security interests."

The front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination stunned two of America's strongest allies with the suggestion that the U.S. military would be withdrawn from their shores, with nuclear weapons replacing them. There are currently 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea. What we've learned about Trump's world view -- "Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper Tuesday. "We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself ... they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us." ….



“Seoul (CNN)Confused, shocked, bewildered. Just a few of the words used in recent days to describe Japan and South Korea's reaction to some of Donald Trump's latest comments about the region. The front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination stunned two of America's strongest allies with the suggestion that the U.S. military would be withdrawn from their shores, with nuclear weapons replacing them. …. Japan remains the only country to have had nuclear weapons used against it and has had a non-nuclear policy and pacifist constitution since the end of World War II. Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida added, "It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons." …. South Korea has a small minority who think Trump may have a point and welcome the idea of nuclear weapons. Academic Cheong Seong-Chang from the non-profit think-tank the Sejong Institute said, "If we have nuclear weapons, we'll be in a much better position to deal with North Korea." But his feeling is not mainstream. …. South Korea should pay us very substantially for protecting them." Howls of inaccuracy came from the South Korean Foreign Ministry, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, and even the White House. Ambassador Mark Lippert said Seoul pays for 55% of all non-personnel costs. …. Reflecting a growing concern, Pinkston added, "Whether he wins the Republican nomination or not, or whether he is elected president or not, even at this stage, he is already doing damage to the U.S. reputation internationally. And damaging U.S. security interests."

Trump has just referred to Un as a “maniac." Any US President who really believes that we are so almighty powerful that we don’t need cultural and military allies is sorely mistaken. I say cultural because, though I’m not a religious person, our people in the US, from the 1600s on down through time have been religious and cultural immigrants from Europe. That’s how we became “a melting pot.” We’re like brothers and sisters to the Europeans. We can trust them as “friends.”

What Russia pulled in Crimea recently should tell Trump why we need Western Europe's backing. If Trump actually does think that he can “make a deal” with Russia that will hold over time and be as strong as those with our true natural allies in Western Europe and much of Asia, he is, as someone said recently, “delusional.” In fact, many things are making me think he is so egotistical that he can’t think straight, and therefore can’t be trusted as a leader of this nation even if I agreed with his policies. I think the thing that drives Trump is his overwhelming desire to be the center of everybody’s attention and love. All he needs is some big and totally boisterous crowds to convince him that he's the top of the stack. He didn’t get to nurse his mother long enough, perhaps.



http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/arab-american-family-seeks-correction-action-removal-airplane/story?id=38084762

Arab-American Family Says They Were Removed from Flight for Being Muslim
By JANET WEINSTEIN
Apr 1, 2016, 1:52 PM

An Arab-American family who was removed from an United Airlines flight last month believes they were the subject of discrimination. They are seeking "corrective action" through the advocacy group, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Eaman-Amy Saad Shebley posted on her Facebook account on March 20 about an altercation between her family and an United Airlines flight crew on a Washington, D.C. bound flight from Chicago O’Hare.

The incident happened when Shebley, who wears an Islamic head scarf, or hijab, asked for an additional strap for the booster seat for one of her children, according to CAIR representative working with the family, Renner Larson. After discussion with a flight attendant about the strap, the family was asked to remove the booster seat, which they say they did.

A short time later, a CAIR statement said the family was told to leave the plane because of safety concerns. They questioned whether it was a "discriminatory decision."

“They felt singled-out and helpless,” Larson told ABC News. “We are tired of more and more of these instances: of Muslims being taken off flights for flimsy reasons.”

The Chicago chapter of CAIR said they sent a letter to United Airlines which calls for a formal apology to the family, disciplinary measures for the crew involved and sensitivity training for employees.

United Airlines maintains the reason the family was asked to leave was safety concern over the child's seat.

“We reached out to the family following their flight on March 20 to discuss their concerns," a United Airlines representative said in a statement to ABC News. "They were originally scheduled to fly on SkyWest 5811, operating as United Express from Chicago O’Hare to Washington, D.C., but we re-booked them on a later flight because of concerns about their child’s safety seat, which did not comply with federal safety regulations."

"Both United and SkyWest hold our employees to the highest standards of professionalism and have zero tolerance for discrimination,” the company added.



“The Chicago chapter of CAIR said they sent a letter to United Airlines which calls for a formal apology to the family, disciplinary measures for the crew involved and sensitivity training for employees. United Airlines maintains the reason the family was asked to leave was safety concern over the child's seat.”

Safety, or a need for sensitivity training? Whichever, we are to assume that in a few days the couple will then be provided with a different child safety seat. Right? This is exactly the kind of thing that I have been concerned about happening to Islamic people here, as it has always happened to blacks and now members of the LGBT community. It’s John Q. Public becoming irrationally vengeful and actively persecuting any immigrant, religious, or racial minority.

We have a belief in this country that enjoys a widespread prevalence, that mob violence or any other form of abuse, especially for no reason at all, is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral. This incident about a child seat is ridiculous, unless it was simply too large for the seat, and perhaps on those planes an armrest can't be collapsed to create more available width in the seat. The write-up doesn’t tell exactly what the problem was with the seat, but that when the mother requested a larger strap to hold it in, the family were removed unceremoniously from the plane.

From the info on American Airlines policy, it is possible under their rules to get an extender “upon request from a flight attendant.” That’s what the mother asked for, and the airline didn’t provide, but booted her off the plane instead. It does sound like a probable case of discrimination to me. The closest analogy to what is happening here – especially since the fact that a larger belt was requested by the mom – is the situation with obese airline passengers. They present the same problem that a large child seat does.

See the following: “American Airlines -- American Airlines requires passengers to purchase an additional seat or upgrade if they do not meet one of the following criteria:
Unable to fit into a single seat in their ticketed cabin and/or Unable to properly buckle their seatbelt using a single seatbelt extender (available upon request from a flight attendant) and/or
Unable to lower both armrests without encroaching upon the adjacent seating space or another passenger.”

https://www.cheapair.com/blog/travel-tips/airline-policies-for-overweight-passengers-traveling-this-summer/, “Airline policies for overweight passengers traveling this summer, January 20, 2015 -- Southwest Airlines: “Passengers of size who do not purchase an additional seat in advance have the option of purchasing just one seat and then discussing their seating needs with the Customer Service Agent at their departure gate. If it is determined that a second (or third) seat is needed, passengers will be accommodated with a complimentary additional seat(s). However, you may be bumped to another flight if no extra seating is available. Southwest Airlines’ width between armrests measures 17 inches.”



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/01/472669895/heres-why-mississippis-religious-freedom-bill-is-so-controversial

Here's Why Mississippi's 'Religious Freedom' Bill Is So Controversial
CAMILA DOMONOSKE
Twitter
April 1, 2016 2:12 PM ET

Photograph -- Rev. Chris Donald, a Methodist chaplain at Millsaps College, joins other human rights advocates in calling for the Mississippi Senate to defeat what they believe is a discriminatory anti-LGBT bill at the rotunda at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss., Wednesday. The Senate passed the bill, which is now on the governor's desk.
Rogelio V. Solis/AP
Graphics -- Map of states with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
Related: IT'S ALL POLITICS, Did You Know It's Legal In Most States To Discriminate Against LGBT People?
Related: THE TWO-WAY, Georgia Gov. Says He Will Veto Controversial 'Religious Liberty' Bill
Related: THE TWO-WAY, North Carolina Passes Law Blocking Measures To Protect LGBT People


This week, Mississippi lawmakers approved a bill called the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act."

Supporters describe it as a bill protecting religious freedom. Critics call it a sweeping bill giving state sanction to open discrimination against LGBT people.

The legislation, now sitting on the governor's desk, allows state employees to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and protects private companies and religious groups from being punished for denying a range of services to LGBT people.

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal speaks during a press conference Monday in Atlanta to announce his rejection of a controversial "religious liberty" bill. He said: "I have examined the protections that this bill proposes to provide to the faith-based community and I can find no examples of any of those circumstances occurring in our state."
And it's clearly focused on the treatment of LGBT people — not on religious freedom writ large.

State religious freedom bills have made the news frequently in recent years, from the controversial passage of an Indiana law last year to one that Georgia's Republican governor refused to sign last month.

Those laws often defined religious belief quite broadly. Supporters of such bills could argue — as Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia did last year, talking to NPR's Jennifer Ludden — that religious freedom laws have a range of applications.

"There are cases about churches feeding the homeless. The neighbors sometimes don't like that. There are cases about Muslim women wearing scarves or veils. They're about Amish buggies. They're about Sabbath observers," Laycock said, saying such laws would apply to all those cases.

Not so Mississippi's bill. Here's Section 2, in its entirety:

The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

The bill then defines all the actions that a Mississippi resident could take — with one of those moral convictions as their reason — with the guarantee that the state government won't punish them or retaliate against them.

For religious organizations, protected actions include: refusing to conduct a marriage, firing or disciplining employees, declining to provide adoption or foster care services and refusing to rent or provide housing.

On Wednesday, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law a bill blocking anti-discrimination rules that would protect gay and transgender people. Above, McCrory speaks during the Wake County Republican convention at the state fairgrounds in Raleigh on March 8.

For individuals and private companies, they include: "guiding, instructing or raising" a foster child in accordance with those three beliefs, refusing to give counseling, fertility services or transition-related medical care, declining to provide wedding-related business services and establishing sex-specific dress codes and having sex-segregated restrooms and other facilities.

And the bill allows state employees to refuse to license or perform marriages to which they morally object.

Any state punishment or retaliation for such actions, like a person losing a job, a license or a state grant, is deemed "discrimination" under the bill, with compensation to be available for those so affected.

The law doesn't mention the right of a private company or person to fire employees or refuse to rent housing. But in Mississippi, as in 27 other states, it's already legal to fire people or refuse to lease them property because of their sexuality.

Both proponents and opponents of the bill have focused on the impact it would have when LGBT Mississippians seek to marry, raise children or receive medical and psychological services. Supporters say the law protects the religious freedoms of those opposed to homosexuality; opponents say the law amounts to a state sanction of discrimination against LGBT people.

Some groups have also noted that because an opposition to extramarital sex is also a protected belief, the proposed Mississippi bill could also impact unmarried couples and single mothers.

But, again, it's worth noting that in Mississippi, as in 27 other states, it's already legal to deny housing to an unmarried couple based on a landlord's objection to premarital sex. Mississippi even has a rarely-enforced law on the books criminalizing cohabitation.

Paul Boger of Mississippi Public Broadcasting reported Thursday on the state Senate debate over the bill. The vote broke down along party lines, Boger reports, with Republicans in favor and Democrats vocally dissenting:

"Freshman Sen. Jennifer Browning, a Republican from Philadelphia, [Miss.], presented the bill. She said it only has one goal: 'This bill in no way allows for discrimination by one person against another. What it does is it prohibits your government from discriminating against you with regard to your religious beliefs. That's the bottom line.

"In all, debate lasted a little more than three hours, with many Democrats arguing the bill was discriminatory against the LGBT community in Mississippi. Many drew distinct parallels between this bill and Jim Crow laws. Sen. John Horne of Jackson says Mississippi's history does not need to repeat itself. ... 'We don't need to put another stain on Mississippi.' "

The state House and Senate passed the bill earlier this week, and on Friday morning, the House approved the final version. It's now headed to Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, for a signature or veto.


“Rev. Chris Donald, a Methodist chaplain at Millsaps College, joins other human rights advocates in calling for the Mississippi Senate to defeat what they believe is a discriminatory anti-LGBT bill at the rotunda at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss., Wednesday. …. The bill then defines all the actions that a Mississippi resident could take — with one of those moral convictions as their reason — with the guarantee that the state government won't punish them or retaliate against them. For religious organizations, protected actions include: refusing to conduct a marriage, firing or disciplining employees, declining to provide adoption or foster care services and refusing to rent or provide housing. …. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal speaks during a press conference Monday in Atlanta to announce his rejection of a controversial "religious liberty" bill. He said: "I have examined the protections that this bill proposes to provide to the faith-based community and I can find no examples of any of those circumstances occurring in our state." And it's clearly focused on the treatment of LGBT people — not on religious freedom writ large. …. "There are cases about churches feeding the homeless. The neighbors sometimes don't like that. There are cases about Muslim women wearing scarves or veils. They're about Amish buggies. They're about Sabbath observers," Laycock said, saying such laws would apply to all those cases. …. The bill then defines all the actions that a Mississippi resident could take — with one of those moral convictions as their reason — with the guarantee that the state government won't punish them or retaliate against them. For religious organizations, protected actions include: refusing to conduct a marriage, firing or disciplining employees, declining to provide adoption or foster care services and refusing to rent or provide housing. …. For individuals and private companies, they include: "guiding, instructing or raising" a foster child in accordance with those three beliefs, refusing to give counseling, fertility services or transition-related medical care, declining to provide wedding-related business services and establishing sex-specific dress codes and having sex-segregated restrooms and other facilities.


“Establishing sex-specific dress codes.” None of those things are good or even acceptable to me, but I can tell you that if they want to burn me at the stake for wearing trousers I’ll put up one hell of a fight about it. I’ll go immediately to the ACLU, get in my car and drive to Canada, and buy a “squirrel gun” like my father's – a 22 rifle. It is easy to hold and aim, and has no painful recoil.

In my high school and college social science classes they gave a range of philosophical positions on government from Communist, to Socialist, to Democratic, to Republican, to Conservative, to Reactionary. Any of those can be Anarchists if they really believe in having no government, and there are people on the far right in the USA today voicing that view. That’s what the “militias” and the “Sovereign Citizens” groups believe. The Sovereign Citizens hold the view that a government has NO LEGITIMATE POWER to restrain its’ citizens at all. Look up the Militias and Sovereign Citizens in Wikipedia, and while you’re at it, the “Dominionists.” And people are worried about Bernie Sanders being a Democratic Socialist!



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/deinster-sv-soccer-club-posts-blackface-photo-team-surprising-response-n548406

Deinster SV Soccer Club Posts Blackface Photo of Team to Surprising Response
by CARLO ANGERER
NEWS MAR 31 2016, 7:37 AM ET

PHOTOGRAPH -- Deinster SV posted this photo on the team's Facebook page. Jorg Struwe / days-webvision.de
Play -- FROM SEPT. 3, 2015: Athletes Suspended for Wearing Blackface Facebook
Related: Belgian Minister Under Fire for Blackface Photos


MAINZ, Germany — This blackface photo is drawing more kudos than condemnation.

A soccer club in northern Germany mocked up the image in a show of support for its two black teammates after one apparently suffered a racist attack.

The digitally-altered photo — which shows the entire Deinster SV team with blackened faces — was posted Wednesday on the amateur team's Facebook page with the hashtag "UnitedWeStand."

It's been shared more than 1,600 times and has received more than 13,000 likes as of Thursday morning and drawn an overwhelmingly and surprisingly positive reaction for a practice typically slammed as deplorable.

"THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM, WE JUST WANTED TO SHOW SOLIDARITY"
"Bravo" cheered one Facebook commenter. Others called the photo "courageous," "brilliant" and an "awesome" way to show solidarity against racism — though at least one posted that despite good intentions, blackface is always wrong.

A spokesperson for Deinster SV said the club had received a few negative comments about the image, but defended its presentation.

"This has nothing to do with racism, we just wanted to show solidarity," spokesman Frank Sandmann told NBC News.

He said the image was posted after Emad Babiker — a Sudanese refugee who has played with the team for two seasons — was beaten and verbally harassed over the weekend. The incident is being investigated by local police, Sandmann added.

The caption of the Facebook post notes that Babiker was attacked "for racist reasons" which is "just so sad."

"Violence against refugees is pathetic," the post says in support of the player. "You belong to us just like anyone else from the Deinster sports club and we are happy that you are with us!!!"

Europe has a complicated — and controversial — history with blackface.

German holiday celebrations sometimes blacken the face of one of the Three Wise Men in Christmas pageants.

The Netherlands, meanwhile, has the holiday character known as "Black Pete" — a Christmas tradition activists have been fighting to retire.



“A soccer club in northern Germany mocked up the image in a show of support for its two black teammates after one apparently suffered a racist attack. The digitally-altered photo — which shows the entire Deinster SV team with blackened faces — was posted Wednesday on the amateur team's Facebook page with the hashtag "UnitedWeStand." …. He said the image was posted after Emad Babiker — a Sudanese refugee who has played with the team for two seasons — was beaten and verbally harassed over the weekend. The incident is being investigated by local police, Sandmann added."Violence against refugees is pathetic," the post says in support of the player. "You belong to us just like anyone else from the Deinster sports club and we are happy that you are with us!!!"

From reading their caption, I believe that their intentions are indeed sincere, and I want to see people young and old take newcomers under their wing like this, unless they are indeed ISIS/al Qaeda/Boko Haram members, etc. If they are, PROVE IT, and put them in prison.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-delay-scheduling-new-york-debate-election-2016/

Clinton campaign: Bernie Sanders is delaying scheduling New York debate
By HANNAH FRASER-CHANPONG
CBS NEWS
April 2, 2016, 12:49 PM

Photographs -- Hillary Clinton file photo (Reuters/Carlos Barria), Mar. 13, 2016; Bernie Sanders photo (Reuters/Carlo Allegri), Mar. 8, 2016 REUTERS / CARLOS BARRIA, CARLO ALLEGRI
Play VIDEO -- Bernie Sanders’ path forward


NEW YORK -- Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday that it has suggested three potential dates for an additional Democratic debate in New York, but all of those dates were rejected by Bernie Sanders and his aides.

"The Sanders campaign needs to stop with the games," said Clinton's national press secretary, Brian Fallon, in a statement.

Sanders' campaign has been publicly challenging Clinton to agree to a debate in New York ahead of the state's primary, which both candidates are eager to win as they compete for the Democratic nomination. According to Fallon, in the past week, the Clinton campaign offered the night of April 4, the night of April 14 and the morning of April 15 as potential dates to meet for a debate.

Past debates this cycle have been nighttime events, but Fallon said the morning option was offered after Sanders agreed to debate on that day on Good Morning America.

"That, too, was rejected," Fallon said.

The night of April 14 and the morning of April 15 are still on the table.

"The Sanders campaign needs to stop using the New York primary as a playground for political games and negative attacks against Hillary Clinton," Fallon said. "The voters of New York deserve better. Senator Sanders and his team should stop the delays and accept a debate on April 14 or the morning of April 15th."

Sanders' campaign shot down the proposed April 4 debate because of a potential conflict with the NCAA's championship game.

"Unfortunately, the dates and venues she has proposed don't make a whole lot of sense," Sanders campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs said in a statement Saturday. "The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous."

The Sanders campaign added that it has "proposed other dates which they have rejected."

In a tweet Saturday, Fallon said the Clinton campaign had "offered a time" that ensured the debate would end "before tipoff."

CBS News' Kylie Atwood contributed to this report.



“Sanders' campaign shot down the proposed April 4 debate because of a potential conflict with the NCAA's championship game. "Unfortunately, the dates and venues she has proposed don't make a whole lot of sense," Sanders campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs said in a statement Saturday. "The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals -- with Syracuse in the tournament no less -- is ludicrous." The Sanders campaign added that it has "proposed other dates which they have rejected." In a tweet Saturday, Fallon said the Clinton campaign had "offered a time" that ensured the debate would end "before tipoff."

Trying to follow this is like watching one of those prize fights in which one guy jabs at the other and then dances off out of range to avoid being hit in return. I do see why Sanders doesn’t want it scheduled on the same day as the NCAA championship, even if it is “before tip off,” because people tend to turn to the channel of their choice before the show comes on, and there are usually sports analysis shows around the time both before and after. I’ve watched Sanders enough now to trust that if he doesn’t want to choose this or that date, there is probably a good reason for it. Besides, I don't believe it's "bounden duty" to debate her again at all. Why does she want to? Maybe because Sanders has pulled ahead again?



http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/02/politics/obama-donald-trump-white-house/index.html

The White House goes nuclear on Donald Trump: An evolution
By Michelle Kosinski, CNN
Updated 11:01 AM ET, Sat April 2, 2016 | Video Source: CNN


Washington (CNN)Back in the early chapters of Donald Trump's headline-gobbling campaign, the White House looked upon the spectacle as little more than a diversionary amusement.

Officials tried to stay above the fray, frequently declining to comment with a wry smile, insisting they weren't going to respond to every statement made on the campaign trail.

But as Trump's rhetoric turned to banning Muslims and insulting women, things began to change, leading to a series of statements in which the President of the United States flatly said the Republican front-runner was unqualified to be commander in chief.

By the end of last summer -- as Trump was saying that African-Americans were worse off under President Barack Obama -- the President himself began dipping a toe in.

"America is great right now," he said in September. "America is winning right now."

No names mentioned. None needed.

President Obama: I believe Trump won't be president 00:53

Within weeks, the White House's own language started to ramp up. "We betray the efforts of the past if we fail to push back against bigotry in all its forms," Obama said at a ceremony commemorating the abolition of slavery. "Our freedom is bound up with the freedom of others. Regardless of what they look like or where they come from, or what their last name is, or what faith they practice."

RELATED: Barack Obama: I don't think Donald Trump will be President

That might not sound specific. But coming just after Trump proposed temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the U.S., everyone knew exactly what Obama was referencing.

At the time, the White House said Obama was merely expressing American values.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, however, was far less opaque, unleashing a string of invective against the GOP front-runner at a White House briefing. Terms like: disqualifying, vacuous, lies, deeply offensive, harmful, toxic, corrosive, incendiary, grotesque, morally reprehensible, contrary, farfetched, unrealistic and counter to the Constitution.

And for a final, stinging slap: a joke about Trump's hair, calling it, and Trump's general appearance, "outrageous."

"The Trump campaign for months now has had a dustbin-of-history-like quality to it. From the vacuous sloganeering to the outright lies to even the fake hair, the whole carnival-barker routine that we've seen for some time now," Earnest let loose. "The question now is about the rest of the Republican Party and whether or not they're going to be dragged into the dustbin of history with him. And right now, the trajectory is not good."

"Disgusting," Trump quickly shot back.

Taking on Trump

Since then, the administration -- even the President -- has hardly been shy about wading into that very muckfest it originally vowed to avoid.

"Vulgar and divisive," Obama declared of the politicking last month. "Damaging," Earnest has said. Saying that the Republican rhetoric (read: Trump's) was potentially hurtful to both national security and America's standing abroad.

RELATED: Donald Trump's history of suggesting Obama is a Muslim

Said Obama at a St. Patrick's Day event: "In America, there is no law that says we have to be nice to each other, or courteous, or treat each other with respect. But there are norms. There are customs. There are values that our parents taught us and that we try to teach to our children to try to treat others the way we want to be treated."

Just last week, after Trump's campaign manager was charged with battery of a reporter, Earnest had no qualms weighing in.

"Neither President Obama nor President (George W.) Bush would tolerate someone on their staff being accused of physically assaulting a reporter, lying about it and then blaming the victim," he stated emphatically in a White House briefing. He added, "Nobody is particularly surprised that's a behavior that Mr. Trump doesn't just seem to tolerate, he seems to encourage."

So it wasn't much of a surprise on Friday when Obama essentially again told the world that Trump isn't fit to be President, speaking at a news conference following the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. This time, Trump had attracted controversy by suggesting earlier in the week that it may be time for Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals so the U.S. can pull back from Asia.

"The person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy, or nuclear policy, or the Korean peninsula -- or the world generally," said Obama, who didn't mention Trump by name.

Donald Trump: I would've beaten Obama in 2012 00:47

That wasn't the case in February, when Obama used another news conference to deliver perhaps his most scathing, extensive Trump slam.

"I continue to believe that Mr. Trump will not be president," Obama said. "And the reason is because I have a lot of faith in the American people. And I think they recognize that being president is a serious job. It's not hosting a talk show or a reality show. It's not promotion. It's not marketing. It's hard," adding, "It's not a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day."

Obama continued: "So yeah, during primaries, people vent and they express themselves ... but as you get closer, reality has a way of intruding. And these are the folks who I have faith in, because they ultimately are going to say, whoever is standing where I'm standing right now has the nuclear codes with them, and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight, and (has) to make sure that the banking system doesn't collapse, and is often responsible for not just the United States of America, but 20 other countries that are having big problems, or are falling apart and are gonna be looking for us to something."

"The American people are pretty sensible," Obama continued. "And I think they will make a sensible choice in the end."

So far, however, none of the White House's swipes have seemed to land, at least not to make a dent in Trump's support. And the candidate himself wasn't intimidated when Obama took him on in February.

"This man has done such a bad job," Trump said in response. "He has set us back so far, and for him to say that is a great compliment, if you want to know the truth."



“At the time, the White House said Obama was merely expressing American values. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, however, was far less opaque, unleashing a string of invective against the GOP front-runner at a White House briefing. Terms like: disqualifying, vacuous, lies, deeply offensive, harmful, toxic, corrosive, incendiary, grotesque, morally reprehensible, contrary, farfetched, unrealistic and counter to the Constitution. …. "The Trump campaign for months now has had a dustbin-of-history-like quality to it. From the vacuous sloganeering to the outright lies to even the fake hair, the whole carnival-barker routine that we've seen for some time now," Earnest let loose. "The question now is about the rest of the Republican Party and whether or not they're going to be dragged into the dustbin of history with him. And right now, the trajectory is not good." "Disgusting," Trump quickly shot back. …. And these are the folks who I have faith in, because they ultimately are going to say, whoever is standing where I'm standing right now has the nuclear codes with them, and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight, and (has) to make sure that the banking system doesn't collapse, and is often responsible for not just the United States of America, but 20 other countries that are having big problems, or are falling apart and are gonna be looking for us to something." "The American people are pretty sensible," Obama continued. "And I think they will make a sensible choice in the end."


Behold: the pot calleth the kettle black!! Trump's comment to the White House statements was "disgusting." Really? So, will the rest of the Republicans be dragged down to Trump’s level out of mistaken loyalty? I suspect not, especially by the end of the race, because a number (I don’t know exactly how many) have spoken out against him already, and I think there will be some who simply stay away from the polls and let the Democratic candidate win out of sheer disgust.

There is even a chance of splitting the party, as one or two articles have suggested. The same could happen with the Democrats, because the people behind Sanders, Socialist or not, are strong supporters and Hillary is seen as comparatively rightist, though she wouldn’t admit to that. But there is the place in the New Testament when Jesus explains about other religions, saying “Ye shall know them by their fruit.” I have begun to be a bit leery about Hillary's fruit, especially since I've tasted Bernie's; and of course Trump is totally unthinkable as a choice.

It may be time that both the major political parties split up to make room for an aggregation between splinter groups whose beliefs are similar. We should perhaps adopt party names like those in the EU, which rather than being merely of long tradition as ours are, they are descriptive of their tenets. We could use a Green Party and a Labor Party here, too. In an election like that of course no party gets much more than 40% of the total vote, but they can win with the highest number of votes just as we do here today.

As for the number of representatives in Congress, we could have a split according to the actual percentage of the national vote on the basis of state, rather than the supposed number of voters in the conveniently redrawn districts. We should do away with gerrymandering entirely. Make all the districts rectangular and of equal size, or do away with the district system. Census numbers are often out of date by the time they’re used, anyway, since a census only is taken every ten years. People these days move around more than that, so it’s not a fair representation for the district in my view. That would put an end to the system of dividing our voters into a small number of weirdly shaped districts which are gerrymandered yearly by the party in power. Whoever is in power has a right to break up those inconvenient districts that are full of minorities, or vice versa, in an effort to engineer a more helpful party based vote.

I think the elimination of the “winner take all” idea would be a very good thing, and replace it with a proportional one instead. When a candidate loses an election with no more than 1% in difference, that is unfair. I wouldn’t mind a Parliamentary system rather than a Republican system. In England, if a Prime Minister becomes too unpopular they have a “vote of no confidence” and he has to step down, along with his henchmen, who are called “the government.” The next elected PM must “form a new government.” That could solve the party gridlock that we have so often in this country. Representative become stale in their ideas and corrupted within ten years or so, so they should have strict term limits as the Presidency does. All we’ve been doing for years now in Congress is fight, fight, fight. No cooperation or “reasoning together.” I, for one, am sick of it.

To correct whatever mistakes I’ve made in this description of parliamentary government (many, I fear) I have excerpted a few comments from Wikipedia below.


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

Parliamentary system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly, the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

Countries with parliamentary systems may be constitutional monarchies, where a monarch is the head of state while the head of government is almost always a member of the legislature (such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan), or parliamentary republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is regularly from the legislature (such as Ireland, Germany, India and Italy). In a few parliamentary republics, such as Botswana, South Africa and Suriname, as well as German states, the head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable to the legislature.

A parliamentary system may use bicameralism with two chambers of parliament (or houses): an elected lower house, and an upper house or Senate which may be appointed or elected by a different mechanism from the lower house. Another possibility is unicameralism with just one parliamentary chamber.

Scholars of democracy such as Arend Lijphart distinguish two types of parliamentary democracies: the Westminster and Consensus systems.[1]

The Westminster system is usually found in the Commonwealth of Nations.[2][3] These parliaments tend to have a more adversarial style of debate and the plenary session of parliament is more important than committees. Some parliaments in this model are elected using a plurality voting system (first past the post), such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and India, while others use proportional representation, such as Ireland and New Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using instant-runoff voting, while the Senate is elected using proportional representation through single transferable vote. Regardless of which system is used, the voting systems tend to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate rather than a closed list.

The Western European parliamentary model (e.g. Spain, Germany) tends to have a more consensual debating system, and usually has semi-circular debating chambers. Consensus systems have more of a tendency to use proportional representation with open party lists than the Westminster Model legislatures. The committees of these Parliaments tend to be more important than the plenary chamber. Some West European countries' parliaments (e.g. in the Netherlands and Sweden) implement the principle of dualism as a form of separation of powers. In countries using this system, Members of Parliament have to resign their place in Parliament upon being appointed (or elected) minister. Ministers in those countries usually actively participate in parliamentary debates, but are not entitled to vote.


Someday I’ll try to really dig into this subject and figure out how it all works, but not tonight. Good evening to you all!