April 4, 2016


News Clips For The Day


UNEQUAL JUSTICE NIGHTMARES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XSJ_HxYohc

JUDGE ORDERS COP TO TASER PEACEFUL DEFENDANT IN COURT! MUST SEE VIDEO!
Published on Apr 1, 2016


A former Maryland judge (Robert C. Nalley) who pleaded guilty to a civil rights violation for ordering a defendant to be physically shocked in his courtroom will have to take anger-management classes as part of his sentence.

"GREENBELT, Md. (AP) — A former Maryland judge who pleaded guilty to a civil rights violation for ordering a defendant to be physically shocked in his court is scheduled to be sentenced.

Robert C. Nalley of La Plata, Maryland, is set to be sentenced Thursday in federal court. Nalley faces a maximum sentence of a year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000. But according to a plea agreement he entered into in February, both prosecutors and Nalley’s lawyer will recommend a sentence of one year of probation.

Nalley acknowledged in the agreement that in July 2014 he ordered a deputy sheriff to activate a “stun-cuff” a defendant was wearing around his ankle, leading the defendant to fall to the ground and scream. Nalley acknowledged as part of the plea deal “that the use of the stun cuff was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.”

Nalley ordered the shock during jury selection after the defendant, who was representing himself in a criminal trial, objected to Nalley’s authority to conduct the proceedings. After the man repeatedly ignored Nalley’s questions and his commands to stop speaking, Nalley told the deputy sheriff to activate the “stun-cuff.”

“Do it. Use it,” Nalley said, according to the plea deal’s statement of facts.

The defendant stopped speaking when the deputy sheriff approached him and activated the device, which administered an electric shock for about five seconds.

Nalley was a judge in Charles County from 1988 to September 2014. The Maryland Court of Appeals rescinded Nalley’s ability to hear cases several months after the incident.

This is not the first time Nalley has been a defendant. In 2010, he pleaded guilty to tampering with a vehicle after he deflated the tire of a cleaning woman’s car that was parked in a restricted zone at the courthouse. As a result, he was fined, had to write a letter of apology and was suspended for five days without pay."

ARTICLE LINK:
http://reviewtimes.com/national-news/...
I MIRRORED THIS VIDEO FROM THE "VerifiedNews" YOUTUBE CHANNEL.
ORIGINAL VIDEO LINK: https://youtu.be/M5U5-fF_aWo
UPDATED INFORMATION ARTICLE:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...
Thank you for watching, commenting and sharing with others!

Peace,
POETIC (People Of Earth Transforming Insidious Corruption)



“…objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.” I see this in so many of the police abuse cases. Their action just doesn’t make sense, and their hostility shows either racist hatred or the simple desire to abuse and try to intimidate someone. It’s sick, but instead of being sent to mandatory treatment with a psychiatrist, they’re hired on the police force.



http://www.copblock.org/157315/woman-has-lip-torn-open-by-police-dog-while-sleeping-on-couch/

BY ASA J
APRIL 3, 2016

Photograph -- Woman Has Lip Torn Open By Police Dog While Sleeping On Couch

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision on Friday that dismissed a lawsuit filed by a woman who said her upper lip was torn open by a San Diego police dog.

Sara Lowry said she was sleeping at her office in Pacific Beach after an evening of drinking on February 11, 2010. She had remembered that she had some leftover lunch in the office refrigerator. After the meal, Lowry decided to take a nap and laid down on the office couch. She said she woke up to use the bathroom and unwittingly activated the silent alarm of a neighboring business before returning to her slumber.

Officers with the San Diego police department responded to the scene, canvased the area and found the door to Lowry’s office open before shouting warnings that a police service dog would be released if the occupant didn’t come out.

After getting no response, the officer unleashed the K-9 named Bak, and it ran into the office, pouncing onto the couch where Lowry was snoozing, and attacked her. The animal took hold of Lowry’s upper lip and caused profuse bleeding from a wound that required three stiches to repair. According to the lawsuit, the dog’s handler latter told the woman she was “very lucky” because his dog “could have ripped [her] face off.”

The suit claims San Diego’s policy of training police dogs to “bite and hold” violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures, and alleges excessive force.

In a 2-1 decision by the three judge panel on Friday, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that a reasonable jury could find that officers used excessive force when they “unleashed a police dog that the officers believed was likely to rip a person’s face off.”

The majority opinion for the court, written by Judge Wallace Tashima, said:
‘In this case we must not rely on the plaintiff’s ‘luck’ that she only ended up bleeding profusely from a cut lip rather than having her whole face ‘ripped off’ to excuse the conduct that the officer himself recognized could well have resulted in a far more egregious injury… we have little trouble concluding that the intrusion on Lowry’s Fourth Amendment rights was severe.

Tashima noted that Lowry did not pose any immediate threat to cops and that she did not resist arrest. He also noted that Sgt. Bill Nulton had the option to keep Bak on its leash, “a tactic that would have allowed him to exercise greater control” over the animal.

“I am very pleased that Sara Lowry’s case will continue towards trial,” Lowry’s attorney, Jeffrey Lake said. “I also look forward to police departments across the country implementing safer canine procedures to better protect the public.

San Diego police have offered no comment on the decision but city attorney’s office spokesperson Gerry Braun said his office is reviewing the opinion, and that it “could impact the future use of police dogs in the city of San Diego and other communities.”

Originally published at Police State Daily.



“The suit claims San Diego’s policy of training police dogs to “bite and hold” violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures, and alleges excessive force. In a 2-1 decision by the three judge panel on Friday, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that a reasonable jury could find that officers used excessive force when they “unleashed a police dog that the officers believed was likely to rip a person’s face off.” …. to excuse the conduct that the officer himself recognized could well have resulted in a far more egregious injury… we have little trouble concluding that the intrusion on Lowry’s Fourth Amendment rights was severe. Tashima noted that Lowry did not pose any immediate threat to cops and that she did not resist arrest. He also noted that Sgt. Bill Nulton had the option to keep Bak on its leash, “a tactic that would have allowed him to exercise greater control” over the animal.” …. San Diego police have offered no comment on the decision but city attorney’s office spokesperson Gerry Braun said his office is reviewing the opinion, and that it “could impact the future use of police dogs in the city of San Diego and other communities.”


I had a German Shepherd lots of years ago. He was killed by a car at nine months old. I had just had him to the vet’s office where they weighed him at 90 pounds. I assume that when he reached a year old he would probably have been 100 pounds or more. That’s the kind of animal that the police need, but they need to be well-handled and well-trained. If the poor woman had been a big guy with a gun, then it would have been rational to turn the dog loose like that, but not in this case.

So many of these cases I’m reading about are motivated by an excessive caution for their own safety and simply poor judgement. Cops also need to be much more careful about human rights. I think they are becoming more conscious, after frequent street marches by BLM, etc. and lots of ACLU lawsuits, that there really IS such a thing as “human rights,” whether they believe in it or not. Cops in this country have been given a “license to kill” for as long as I can remember. We need more ENFORCEMENT of existing laws, especially, and more and better tracking systems of police killings. An article within the last year or so said that though the FBI tracks police killings, the reporting of them is not strict. There are many gaps in the FBI information as a result. When cops aren’t getting away with it anymore, most of them will stop doing these things. Most of them are not stupid or borderline insane. They’re lazy and immoral – not all of them, of course, but enough to give private citizens a lot of unjust trouble.



http://www.copblock.org/157279/dale-brown-provides-real-protection-with-psychology-training-incentives/

Dale Brown Provides Real Protection with Psychology, Training & Incentives
APRIL 2, 2016 BY PETE EYRE


Last week thousands were exposed to the good word of Dale Brown due to his appearance on the video series Anarchast. Brown, the founder of Threat Management Center (TMC), is no stranger to CopBlockers, many of whom tout his methods as being superior to police “services” and worthy of replication. And for good reason.

The hour-long interview is definitely worth a watch. If this is your first time hearing of Brown and TMC be forewarned: you’ll never look at the provision of protection the same afterward.

If you are struck by just how profoundly different are the incentives inherent within TMC, as compared to those within your local cop shop, that’s because they are. Police don’t have to compete for customers. They are not individually held accountable for their actions. The inverse of both of those is the reality for TMC. If they don’t do a good job, if they mess up, they won’t be in business.

Thanks to Brown and his colleagues for forging this path. I don’t think it a stretch to say that the TMC business model is aligned much more closely to the definition of justice most folks hold. And that means it’s conducive not to an oppressive, tyrannical world staffed with unthinking thugs who claim that they’re “just doing their job” but a world conducive to freedom, creativity, and human flourishing. Incentives matter. Ideas matter. And actions matter.

Be sure to invest in yourself.



https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/william-norman-grigg/call-the-anti-police/

LewRockwell.comanti-state•anti-war•pro-market

Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly
By William Norman Grigg
Pro Libertate Blog
September 17, 2014


“How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”

Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.

“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.” Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown’s organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.

To illustrate, Brown refers to an incident from a security patrol in which he encountered a black teenager “who was walking in a neighborhood at about 3:00 a.m. dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, doing what is sometimes called `the drift’ – it was pretty clear he was up to something.”

Rather than calling the police – who, given their typical four-hour response time, wouldn’t have arrived soon enough to be of any help, as if helping were part of their job description – Brown took action that was both preventive and non-aggressive.

“I told him, `There are criminals here who might rob you, so you’ll get free bodyguard service anytime you’re in the neighborhood,’” Brown related to me. “I also asked for his name and personal information for a `Good person file’ that would clear him with the cops next time he decided to go jogging in a black hoodie a three in the morning. He didn’t have to give me that information, of course, but he told me what I needed to know – and we’ve never seen him there again.”

Brown and his associates take a similar approach to dealing with minor problems that usually result in police citations that clog court dockets and blight the lives of harmless people.

“When we see someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, we offer to take their keys and call their families to get them home,” he reports. “This way we keep them safe from harm – and, just as importantly, protect them from prosecution. Again, everything we do is the opposite of what the police do. If you have a joint in your pocket, the cops will be all over you – but if you’re facing actual danger, they’re nowhere to be found, and aren’t required to help you even if they show up.”

That contrast is most visible in confrontations with potentially dangerous people. Brown’s company receives referrals to provide security for people who face active threats, such as victims of domestic violence. One representative case involved a young mother whose daughter had been abducted by a violent, abusive father with a lengthy criminal history. The child was rescued and reunited with her mother without guns being drawn or anybody being hurt.

For reasons of accountability and what the private sector calls “quality assurance,” Brown and his colleagues recorded that operation, as they document nearly everything else they do. However, they weren’t playing to the cameras. The same can’t be said of the Detroit PD SWAT team that stormed the home of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones at midnight in May 2010 while filming the assault for a cable television program.

Officer Joseph Weekley, who burst through the door carrying a ballistic shield and an MP5 submachine gun, shot and killed Aiyana, who had been sleeping on the living room couch. By the time she was killed terrified little girl had already been burned by a flash-bang grenade that had been hurled into the living room.

The home was surrounded with toys and other indicia that children resided therein, and neighbors had pleaded with the police not to carry out the blitzkrieg. The cops did arrest a suspect in a fatal shooting, but he resided in a different section of the same building. In any case, the suspect could have been taken into custody without a telegenic paramilitary assault – if the safety of those on the receiving end of police violence had been factored into the SWAT team’s calculations.

Owing in no small measure to public outrage, Weekly has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death. A jury deadlocked on the charges in July 2013. Weekley now faces a second trial that will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome the presumption that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable. This is a function of the entirely spurious, and endlessly destructive, doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects police officers from personal liability when their actions result in unjustified harm to the persons or property of innocent people.

The rationale behind qualified immunity is the belief that absent such protection competent and talented people wouldn’t enlist as peace officers. In practice, however, qualified immunity merely emboldens incompetent and vicious police officers.

“Police should be subject to exactly the same laws and liabilities that the rest of us face,” contends Brown. “If we don’t have perfect reciprocity, then police should be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the citizenry. If they commit criminal acts that result in injury or death, police should do double the time that a `civilian’ would face, because they’re supposed to be professionals.”

As private sector professionals, Brown observes, “we have double accountability – first to our clients who pay us, and then to the criminal justice system and civil courts if we do something wrong. And because the police usually see us as competitors, they are very eager to come after us if we screw up. But in all the years we’ve been working, we’ve had no deaths or injuries – either to our clients or to our own people – no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.”

Not only do Brown and his associates operate without the benefit of “qualified immunity,” they are required to expose themselves to physical risk on behalf of their clients – something that police are trained to avoid.

“For police officers, going home at the end of the shift is the highest priority,” Brown observes. “For us it can’t be. When we’re hired to protect a client, his home, his business, his family, we’ve made a choice to put the client’s safety above our own, and to make sure that he or she gets home safely at the end of the day.”

When people seek help from the police, Brown points out, they’re inviting intervention by someone who has no enforceable duty to protect them, but will be rewarded for injuring them or needlessly complicating their lives.

“Let’s examine this logically,” Brown begins. “What is this human being – the police officer – going to get out of becoming involved in your troubles? Will be he rewarded for helping you to solve them, especially if this involves a personal risk? Would solving your problem be worth getting injured or killed?”

“We’re dealing with a basic question of human motivations,” Brown continues. “Police are not required to intervene to protect you – there is a very long list of judicial precedents proving this. They’re actually rewarded for not intervening. Here, once again, I emphasize that Threat Management is not comparable to the police. We follow exactly the opposite approach. People don’t have to work with Threat Management, but if they choose to, that’s what we expect of them.”

Some critics of TMC and other private security firms insist that their personnel cannot match the qualifications and experience of government-employed police officers. That objection wildly overestimates the professional standards that must be met in order for an individual to become a government-licensed purveyor of privileged violence.

“An individual can become a police officer in six months,” Brown points out. “Can you become a doctor or an EMT in six months? Is there any other profession in which employees can become `qualified’ to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of other people after just a few months of training?”

By way of supplementing Brown’s point: In Arkansas, an applicant can become a police officer in a day, and work in that capacity for a year, without professional certification of any kind. However, to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. For an investment of 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor.

While Arkansas strictly regulates those who cut hair or paint nails in private, voluntary transactions, it imposes no training or licensing standards whatsoever on armed people who claim the authority to inflict lethal violence on others. This is not to concede that there is any way one human being can become legitimately “qualified” to commit aggressive violence against another.

“Law enforcement attracts a certain personality type that is prone to narcissism and aggression,” Brown asserts, speaking from decades of experience. “People like that get weeded out from our program very early. We protect innocent people from predators, and we can’t carry out that mission by hiring people who are predatory themselves. Our people receive extensive training in firearms and unarmed combat techniques, but they’re also taught to look at all humans as members of the same family. The question we want them to ask themselves is – in what circumstances would you shoot, or otherwise harm a member of your family? They’re trained to apply that standard in all situations involving a potential use of force. People who can’t think that way aren’t going to fit in with our program.”

Brown emphatically agrees that the phenomenon called “police militarization” is a huge and growing menace, but insists that the core problem is “not the military hardware, or the other trappings of militarization, but the system itself. Police agencies attract the wrong kind of people and then tell them, `You’re like God’ – they get to impose their will on others and use lethal force at their discretion. And when someone who is really golden shows up – that is, an ethical, conscientious person who wants to protect the public – they get redirected into a role that will minimize their influence for good by people who are worried about their own job security.”

“Ideally, the best approach would be to abolish the current system and start over,” Brown concludes. “But the very least we should demand would be total equity and complete accountability – which would mean, as a starting point, doing away with this idea of `qualified immunity.’ Police are citizens, and they should be governed by the same laws that apply to all citizens. No exceptions, no special protections.”

Several studies have shown that there are between three and four times as many private peace officers – such as security guards, armored truck drivers, and private investigators – as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. That fact demonstrates that the security market is completely unserved by government law enforcement agencies. This shouldn’t be surprising, since – as I have observed before – police agencies serve the interests of those who plunder private property, and thus can’t be expected to protect it.

Police personnel practice aggressive violence from the shelter of “qualified immunity.” The absence of such protection doesn’t deter talented, motivated people such as Dale Brown and his associates – and others providing similar services in Houston, Oakland, and elsewhere — from seeking employment as private security officers who actually accept personal risk to protect property.

Why not abolish qualified immunity for all security personnel? Critics of that proposal might protest that this would undermine the state’s monopoly on the provision of “security” by requiring its employees to compete on equal terms with the private sector. Which is precisely the point.



This article really says it all. I have noticed the number of times that after a killing the officer says, and in exactly this phrasing, “I feared for my life.” That’s lawyer speak and not a true witness of how he felt. It’s the result of “coaching,” by both the police union and the defense lawyer. A real US citizen doesn’t say anything like that, anyway. He says “I was scared and I shot in panic.” It sounds much more convincing to me.

Another thing I have seen at times is that the person “failed to obey orders,” and therefore was charged with resisting arrest or was even shot. There was one shocking example when the man who got shot as a deaf mute, and could not hear the darned command. Even if a person does struggle, mouth off at the cop or simply run, that doesn’t make it right to shoot him – at least by any moral or ethical standard. Ethics and morals should be taught to officers as a part of their training and enforced with strong punishments if they aren’t followed.

The first paragraph or so in this article mentions that TMC policy is “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?” Experimental psychology has held that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative, though in the continued absence of good behavior, demotions, reduction in pay or firing are justified. “… will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome “the PRESUMPTION that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable.”

As this article states, an obvious fact to me is that the police departments do tend to attract narcissistic and aggressive people; to a certain degree this a built in danger in such a job, but PDs do not do enough to spot mentally defective people or even those with criminal backgrounds. “No exceptions, no special protections.” A cop, like a good politician, needs to be squeaky clean and be punished in the courts just as ordinary citizens are, or as the article states, more stringently because they are highly trusted professionals who have the care and protection of human beings (even if they are black) as their duty.

The problem we are having nowadays is that we have done virtually nothing down through the decades and even centuries to produce a highly professional and fair system which produces a safe environment rather than merely “punishing” “perps” and even executing them. Too often it’s all about being macho and not about the exercise of good sense. I don’t think I have ever heard of a female officer doing one of these excessively violent things.

Finally, the comment that his security guards are taught ways to “dominate without killing” is so important. In old movies showing humble people on the streets of New York interacting with trust and friendship in relation to the cop “on their beat.” That doesn’t happen when people in the neighborhood are abused and not protected from their protector!

Finally, the idea that a cop is not required to stop a mugging in process because he might get hurt is ridiculous. What the H do we want him there for, then? As this article said, they are supposed to be taught to fight effectively without using a gun unless it’s truly necessary. If they’re going to have all those special perqs about how they are allowed to do their jobs, the least they can do is actually fight for the citizens when it’s needed. Cops are supposed to be heroes, but if they don’t do that they are not heroes in my book.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-the-poor-die-earlier-social-security-isnt-paying-off/

As the poor die earlier, Social Security isn't paying off
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH
April 4, 2016, 10:52 AM

Play VIDEO -- Tips for navigating Social Security's complicated system


Death and taxes may be inevitable, but they hit the rich and poor in different -- and sometimes unfair -- ways.

That's increasingly evident with the expected life spans of today's workers, given that low-income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespans, according to new research into longevity and retirement from the Government Accountability Office that was prepared for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT).

The growing gap between the lifespans of the rich and poor is eating away at the benefits that poor workers can expect from Social Security, the report found. American men who make about $20,000 annually are likely to lose as much as 14 percent of their Social Security lifetime benefits because of their shorter-than-average lives, while men making $80,000 per year stand to see a gain of 18 percent in their benefits given their additional years on earth, the report found. Boosting the retirement age would only exacerbate those disparities, the GAO warned.

Because poor Americans often rely on Social Security as their sole means of support in retirement, boosting the retirement age would provide a double-whammy to many low-income workers. They'd still die at an earlier age than rich Americans, while also being penalized if they couldn't continue working until an even older full retirement age.

"Poverty should not be a death sentence," Sanders, the ranking member on the Primary Health and Retirement Security Subcommittee, said in a statement. "When over half of older workers have no retirement savings, we need to expand, not cut, Social Security so that every American can retire with the benefits they've earned and the dignity they deserve."

Currently, workers can claim Social Security retirement benefits when they turn 62 years old, but take a reduced benefit at that age. It's by far better to hold off on claiming Social Security as long as one can, given that benefits increase at full retirement age, which is currently 66 for people born between 1943 to 1954. Benefits are highest if seniors can wait to claim until they turn 70, although that's tougher for poor Americans, given that the majority lack other sources of retirement funds.

"Lower-income groups, in particular, may be more adversely affected by certain proposed changes because they are more reliant on Social Security retirement benefits and because they have shorter-than-average life expectancy," the report said. "It is important that any proposals to change the Social Security program take into account how disparities in life expectancy affect the total benefits received by different groups over their lifetimes."

At the heart of the issue is the progressive structure of the Social Security system, which is geared toward helping poorer Americans in old age by redistributing income from higher earners. But as life expectancies are increasingly determined by income, the program is losing its progressive edge.

It's not only the shorter lives of the poor that are eating into their retirement benefits, but the fact that many retire earlier. About 56 percent of men and women in the bottom third of the mid-career income distribution start claiming Social Security at 62, while only 14 percent hold off until they reach 66 years old, the Brookings Institution found earlier this year.

The life expectancy gap may be growing due to differences in smoking rates and health care coverage among the rich and poor. A high-income man born in 1920 had a life expectancy of 79.3 years, while a poor man born the same year was projected to live 5 fewer years. For men born in 1940, that gap has widened to 12 years, Brookings found. The GAO report cited six reports on life expectancy that all found gaps between rich and poor Americans, with the differences in years of life ranging from 3.6 years to almost 13 years.

While wealthier Americans are living longer, poor white workers have been hit by issues including drug and alcohol abuse. Death rates for whites between 45 to 54 have increased half a percent per year since 1998, the Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton found last year.

Given that Social Security's combined reserves may be dry by 2034, policy makers are floating ideas such as raising the retirement age. But there are other ways to boost the program's reserves, including lifting the cap on taxable wage income, which now stands at $118,000, or raising the payroll tax.



“… low-income Americans are projected to die as many as 13 years earlier than their wealthier cohort, while a century ago the rich and poor had relatively identical lifespans, according to new research into longevity and retirement from the Government Accountability Office that was prepared for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT). …. American men who make about $20,000 annually are likely to lose as much as 14 percent of their Social Security lifetime benefits because of their shorter-than-average lives, while men making $80,000 per year stand to see a gain of 18 percent in their benefits given their additional years on earth, the report found. Boosting the retirement age would only exacerbate those disparities, the GAO warned. …. "When over half of older workers have no retirement savings, we need to expand, not cut, Social Security so that every American can retire with the benefits they've earned and the dignity they deserve." …. "Lower-income groups, in particular, may be more adversely affected by certain proposed changes because they are more reliant on Social Security retirement benefits and because they have shorter-than-average life expectancy," the report said. "It is important that any proposals to change the Social Security program take into account how disparities in life expectancy affect the total benefits received by different groups over their lifetimes." …. But as life expectancies are increasingly determined by income, the program is losing its progressive edge. It's not only the shorter lives of the poor that are eating into their retirement benefits, but the fact that many retire earlier. About 56 percent of men and women in the bottom third of the mid-career income distribution start claiming Social Security at 62 ….
The life expectancy gap may be growing due to differences in smoking rates and health care coverage among the rich and poor. …. While wealthier Americans are living longer, poor white workers have been hit by issues including drug and alcohol abuse. Death rates for whites between 45 to 54 have increased half a percent per year since 1998, the Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton found last year.”


“But there are other ways to boost the program's reserves, including lifting the cap on taxable wage income, which now stands at $118,000, or raising the payroll tax.” This fact, which I’ve seen, before deeply offends me. Why should the wealthy pay less, or none at all? And then our Republican dominated legislature wants to further burden the poor to balance the budget. It’s great to see that Sanders is pushing to research the situation and work for good and fair changes rather than continually cutting the income for the fund. It has just occurred to me that since the SS money comes from a tax on wages, if the minimum is raised to $15.00 an hour, we will automatically have more to disburse. Right? And just to show that Sanders is a REAL Democrat, I will quote his statement "When over half of older workers have no retirement savings, we need to expand, not cut, Social Security so that every American can retire with the benefits they've earned and the dignity they deserve." Congress does seem to be forgetting that we did earn it with every paycheck. SS is not a form of charity, but a self-paying retirement plan. Not only do we really severely need it, but we also deserve it.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-one-person-one-vote-rule/

Supreme Court rejects challenge to "one person, one vote" rule
AP April 4, 2016, 1:37 PM

Photograph -- People wait in line to enter the Supreme Court building January 11, 2016 in Washington, D.C. MARK WILSON, GETTY IMAGES
Related articles: Mississippi judge blocks ban on adoption by same-sex couples
Supreme Court deadlock upholds win for unions in fee case


A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts.

The justices turned back a challenge from Texas voters that could have dramatically altered political district boundaries and disproportionately affected the nation's growing Latino population.

The court ruled that Texas' challenged state Senate districting map, using total population, complied with the principle of "one person, one vote," the requirement laid out by the Supreme Court in 1964 that political districts be roughly equal in population.

The issue, though, was what population to consider: everyone or just eligible voters.

The challengers said the districts had vastly different numbers when looking at eligible voters, in violation of the Constitution.

"Jurisdictions, we hold, may design state and local legislative districts with equal total populations; they are not obliged to equalize voter populations," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, summarizing her opinion for the court.

Ginsburg said that "history, our decisions and settled practice in all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions point in the same direction."

Two rural Texas voters challenged the use of total population data in drawing state Senate districts because they said it inflates the voting power of city dwellers at their expense.

In Texas, and other states with large immigrant populations, urban districts include many more people who are too young, not citizens or otherwise ineligible to vote. Civil rights groups said forcing states to change their method of constructing districts would have damaged Latino political influence.

The court stopped short of saying that states must use total population. And it also did not rule on whether states are free to use a different measure, as Texas asked.

Ginsburg said the court was not resolving whether states may use voter population.

Richard Hasen, an expert in election law at the University of California at Irvine law school, said, "A contrary ruling would have shifted power to Republican, rural districts, and away from Democratic urban areas."

Edward Blum, whose Project on Fair Representation backed the lawsuit, said he was disappointed in the outcome, but predicted that "the issue of voter equality in the United States is not going to go away."

Though the justices were unanimous in upholding Texas' use of total population, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito declined to join Ginsburg's opinion.

Thomas said the Constitution gives the states the freedom to draw political lines based on different population counts. Referring to the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, he said the high court "has never provided a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle."

Alito objected to Ginsburg's reliance on the Constitution's prescription for using the once-a-decade census to divvy up seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Alito said the history of congressional representation was the product of political compromise. "It is impossible to draw any clear constitutional command from this complex history," he said.



“A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts. The justices turned back a challenge from Texas voters that could have dramatically altered political district boundaries and disproportionately affected the nation's growing Latino population. The court ruled that Texas' challenged state Senate districting map, using total population, complied with the principle of "one person, one vote," the requirement laid out by the Supreme Court in 1964 that political districts be roughly equal in population. …. Civil rights groups said forcing states to change their method of constructing districts would have damaged Latino political influence. The court stopped short of saying that states must use total population. And it also did not rule on whether states are free to use a different measure, as Texas asked. Ginsburg said the court was not resolving whether states may use voter population. Richard Hasen, an expert in election law at the University of California at Irvine law school, said, "A contrary ruling would have shifted power to Republican, rural districts, and away from Democratic urban areas." …. Alito objected to Ginsburg's reliance on the Constitution's prescription for using the once-a-decade census to divvy up seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Alito said the history of congressional representation was the product of political compromise. "It is impossible to draw any clear constitutional command from this complex history," he said.”


I can see that no matter what the Supreme Court says in this case, the technique of invalidating minority votes – even by such means as closing the road to the polling place as happened in Jacksonville a number of years ago – will go on. I have lost all faith that any governmental bodies will be pure and honest in what they do. We really have to keep our eyes open and watch them. The miracle of so many photo equipped cell phones is changing things, though. The only goal of some politicians is to win by whatever means is necessary. Disenfranchising voters is too me a highly objectionable thing to do and if we have to rewrite the Constitution on this matter we should do so.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-davis-and-justin-serak-youth-home-employees-charged-in-choking-death-of-chicago-teen/

2 employees charged after Chicago boy dies at facility for troubled youth
CBS NEWS
April 4, 2016, 7:35 AM


Photograph -- Lake Villa Police Chief Craig Somerville says employees James Davis and Justin Serak were attempting to get the teenager to his room when the incident unfolded. CBS CHICAGO


CHICAGO -- Two employees of a residential treatment center for troubled teens in Lake Villa are charged in the death of a 16-year-old resident following a struggle on Wednesday night, CBS Chicago reports.

Detective Chris Covelli with the Lake County Major Crimes task Force says Shaquan Allen was having behavioral issues at the Allendale Association residential treatment center.

Lake Villa Police Chief Craig Somerville says employees James Davis and Justin Serak were attempting to get him to his room.

"Officers were told by Allendale staff that the juvenile became unconscious during an effort to restrain him following a brief struggle," Somerville said.

Covelli said Davis had the teen by the throat and Serak was holding his legs and Covelli said both lied to investigators, saying all three slipped on water.

"It was later determined the water was caused by the defendants pouring water on the victim to attempt to wake him," Covelli said.

He said there were 15 witnesses.

The teen died of asphyxiation due to restraint.

Covelli said, "It's a tragic time for the family and we can't imagine the pain they're going through right now."


State's Attorney Mike Nerheim asked for a million dollars bond for Davis, who's charged with involuntary manslaughter and obstruction.

"We have a dead 16-year-old child, so I think a million dollars is appropriate," he said.

Serak is charged with obstruction and had his bond set at $50,000.

Nerheim said its troubling nobody called 911 for 15 minutes.

"Anytime you have a case like this it's a tragedy and that's always compounded when you have a child," he said.

The victim's family said they were told three different stories by Allendale staff.

"I wanna know how could this happen to my baby and nobody is telling me anything to let me know what's really going on," said the victim's mother, Willie Mae Allen.

The boy was a ward of the state and his mother said she pressed for him to be admitted to the facility because she didn't want to lose him to the streets.



“'Officers were told by Allendale staff that the juvenile became unconscious during an effort to restrain him following a brief struggle,' Somerville said. Covelli said Davis had the teen by the throat and Serak was holding his legs and Covelli said both lied to investigators, saying all three slipped on water. …. "It was later determined the water was caused by the defendants pouring water on the victim to attempt to wake him," Covelli said. Serak is charged with obstruction and had his bond set at $50,000. Nerheim said its troubling nobody called 911 for 15 minutes. "Anytime you have a case like this it's a tragedy and that's always compounded when you have a child," he said. The victim's family said they were told three different stories by Allendale staff. …. The boy was a ward of the state and his mother said she pressed for him to be admitted to the facility because she didn't want to lose him to the streets.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/last-surviving-war-chief-montana-crow-tribe-joseph-medicine-crow-dies-102/

Last Plains Indian war chief dies at age 102
CBS/AP April 4, 2016, 10:51 AM

Photograph -- In this family photo, Joseph Medicine Crow wears a headdress beaded by his granddaughter and a war shirt from the Custer Battlefield Trading Post in Crow Agency, Montana. The Bighorn Mountains are in the background. RAMONA MEDICINE CROW VIA KTVQ
17 PHOTOS -- Presidential Medal of Freedom
Photograph -- medicinecrowobama.jpg, Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Joseph Medicine Crow shows a drum to President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama during a reception for recipients and their families in the Blue Room of the White House, August 12, 2009. THE WHITE HOUSE


BILLINGS, Mont.- Joseph Medicine Crow, an acclaimed Native American historian and the last surviving war chief of Montana's Crow Tribe, has died. He was 102.

Medicine Crow died Sunday, Bullis Mortuary funeral home director Terry Bullis said. Services will be announced Monday, he said.

A member of the Crow Tribe's Whistling Water clan, Medicine Crow was raised by his grandparents in a log house in a rural area of the Crow Reservation near Lodge Grass, Montana.

His Crow name was "High Bird," and he recalled listening as a child to stories about the Battle of Little Bighorn from those who were there, including his grandmother's brother, White Man Runs Him, a scout for Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer.

The National Parks Service claims Medicine Crow was "the last living person with a direct oral history from a participant of the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876."

His grandfather, Yellowtail, raised Medicine Crow to be a warrior. The training began when Medicine Crow was just 6 or 7, with a punishing physical regimen that included running barefoot in the snow to toughen the boy's feet and spirit.

Medicine Crow in 1939 became the first of his tribe to receive a master's degree, in anthropology. He served for decades as a Crow historian, cataloging his people's nomadic history by collecting firsthand accounts of pre-reservation life from fellow tribal members.

"I always told people, when you meet Joe Medicine Crow, you're shaking hands with the 19th century," said Herman Viola, curator emeritus at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American Indians.

During World War II, Medicine Crow earned the title of war chief after performing a series of daring deeds. According to the Parks service, "in order to become a Chief of the Tribe, certain Crow Military requirements have to be met, consisting of four deeds: Touch or strike the first enemy fallen, whether alive or dead; To wrestle a weapon away from an enemy warrior; To enter an enemy camp at night and steal a horse; To command a war party successfully."

While in Europe, Medicine Crow completed these tasks, including stealing horses from an enemy encampment and hand-to-hand combat with a German soldier whose life Medicine Crow ultimately spared.

"Warfare was our highest art, but Plains Indian warfare was not about killing. It was about intelligence, leadership, and honor," Medicine Crow wrote in his 2006 book "Counting Coup."

Soon after returning from the European front, Medicine Crow was designated tribal historian by the Crow Tribal Council.

With his prodigious memory, Medicine Crow could accurately recall decades later the names, dates and exploits from the oral history he was exposed to as a child, Viola said. Those included tales told by four of the six Crow scouts who were at Custer's side at Little Bighorn and who Medicine Crow knew personally.

Yet Medicine Crow also embraced the changes that came with the settling of the West, and he worked to bridge his people's cultural traditions with the opportunities of modern society. His voice became familiar to many outside the region as the narrator for American Indian exhibits in major museums across the country.

"He really wanted to walk in both worlds, the white world and Indian world, and he knew education was a key to success," said Viola, who first met Medicine Crow in 1972 and collaborated with him on several books.

Gov. Steve Bullock said Medicine Crow was an inspiration to his tribe and others.

"Joe was a Crow war chief, veteran, elder, historian, author, and educator. His legacy will forever serve as an inspiration for all Native Americans - and all Montanans," he said.

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines said Medicine Crow was a good leader and the first member of the Crow Tribe to attain a master's degree.

"Medicine Crow's spirit, humility and life achievements leave a lasting imprint on Montana's history," Daines said.

President Barack Obama awarded Medicine Crow the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009.

During the White House ceremony, Obama referred to Medicine Crow as "a good man, a 'bacheitche' in Crow."

"(His) life reflects not only the warrior spirit of the Crow people, but America's highest ideals," Obama said.

He was nominated for the Congressional Gold Medal and was awarded honorary doctoral degrees from the University of Southern California and Montana's Rocky Mountain College.

In 2015, CBS affiliate KTVQ reports Billings school officials named the new middle school in the Heights "Medicine Crow Middle School," which is currently under construction on the corner of Bench Boulevard and Barret Road.

In the years leading to his death, Medicine Crow continued to live with his family in Lodge Grass. His wife died in 2009. Even after his hearing and eyesight faded, Medicine Crow continued to lecture into his 90s on the Battle of Little Bighorn and other major events in Crow history.



“A member of the Crow Tribe's Whistling Water clan, Medicine Crow was raised by his grandparents in a log house in a rural area of the Crow Reservation near Lodge Grass, Montana. His Crow name was "High Bird," and he recalled listening as a child to stories about the Battle of Little Bighorn from those who were there, including his grandmother's brother, White Man Runs Him, a scout for Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer. …. Medicine Crow in 1939 became the first of his tribe to receive a master's degree, in anthropology. He served for decades as a Crow historian, cataloging his people's nomadic history by collecting firsthand accounts of pre-reservation life from fellow tribal members. …. During World War II, Medicine Crow earned the title of war chief after performing a series of daring deeds. According to the Parks service, "in order to become a Chief of the Tribe, certain Crow Military requirements have to be met, consisting of four deeds: Touch or strike the first enemy fallen, whether alive or dead; To wrestle a weapon away from an enemy warrior; To enter an enemy camp at night and steal a horse; To command a war party successfully." While in Europe, Medicine Crow completed these tasks, including stealing horses from an enemy encampment and hand-to-hand combat with a German soldier whose life Medicine Crow ultimately spared. "Warfare was our highest art, but Plains Indian warfare was not about killing. It was about intelligence, leadership, and honor," Medicine Crow wrote in his 2006 book "Counting Coup." …. Yet Medicine Crow also embraced the changes that came with the settling of the West, and he worked to bridge his people's cultural traditions with the opportunities of modern society. His voice became familiar to many outside the region as the narrator for American Indian exhibits in major museums across the country. "He really wanted to walk in both worlds, the white world and Indian world, and he knew education was a key to success," said Viola, who first met Medicine Crow in 1972 and collaborated with him on several books. …. "Joe was a Crow war chief, veteran, elder, historian, author, and educator. His legacy will forever serve as an inspiration for all Native Americans - and all Montanans," he said. U.S. Sen. Steve Daines said Medicine Crow was a good leader and the first member of the Crow Tribe to attain a master's degree. …. President Barack Obama awarded Medicine Crow the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. During the White House ceremony, Obama referred to Medicine Crow as "a good man, a 'bacheitche' in Crow." "(His) life reflects not only the warrior spirit of the Crow people, but America's highest ideals," Obama said. He was nominated for the Congressional Gold Medal and was awarded honorary doctoral degrees from the University of Southern California and Montana's Rocky Mountain College. …. In the years leading to his death, Medicine Crow continued to live with his family in Lodge Grass. His wife died in 2009. Even after his hearing and eyesight faded, Medicine Crow continued to lecture into his 90s on the Battle of Little Bighorn and other major events in Crow history.”


Counting Coup. I remember reading about that in one of my anthropology courses. I took two, one of which was about various types of societies – hunter gatherer groups, herding groups, town living groups, etc. and the other course was a series of studies in depth about a number of modern, but relatively unchanged, groups, their social organization, marriage and kinship system, etc. None of those people were modernized, and had retained many if not most of their ancient characteristics.

One of the groups we studied was the African group who are called “pygmies” by most English speakers. They don’t like that, but prefer their own tribal names, not surprisingly. They’re one of the most ancient Homo Sapiens groups alive today. Australian Aborigines are also in the same date range. Pygmies are very small, three feet tall or so, and they have spread through (according to Wikipedia) Central Africa, “then there are also pygmies in Australia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Andaman Islands, [4] Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Bolivia, and Brazil,[5] including some Negritos of Southeast Asia.” That kind of territorial spread tells me that they are ancient, and probably spread by sea. To make it from Africa to Indonesia to Bolivia and Brazil is quite a feat for a culturally simple group, and hard to do on foot. Homo sapiens have always been very intelligent, though, and the basic idea of a boat isn’t a far cry from a log floating down the river. See below some information from Wikipedia about their dating based on DNA studies.

When you look at such groups you will find characteristics that go back many thousands of years which are still maintained alongside their acquired modern customs. They have changed somewhat, though, due to adopting a relationship to modern Whites, but have kept up some very old traditions, stories, art, etc. My favorite society are the Sami of Northern Europe. They, to this day, have at least some members who still perform their traditional reindeer herding. Others have moved into town nearby and taken up modern trades like fishing or farming. Actually I shouldn’t imply that the Sami are not Caucasian, but their faces do have an Asian look to them with the epicanthic fold making their eyes look slanted and their skin has the brownish look that a lot of Asians have if they spend time out in the sun. I have heard that the old references to Asians being “yellow” isn’t true unless they never get outdoors. Farming Asians are brown like American Indians.

On one of my video tape documentaries shows a small family of Sami who were all sitting in a circle around the fire inside a large tent, while the elderly woman was beating a deep voiced drum and singing a ceremonial chant. It was really beautiful. I tend to think of reindeer as wild animals, but these aren’t. They’re just like horses. The Sami drink the milk and make cheese, pet and talk to them, hitch the animals up to wagons to pull, and eventually they do eat them.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples
Genetic evidence for origins

African pygmy populations are genetically diverse and extremely divergent from all other human populations, suggesting they have an ancient indigenous lineage. Their uniparental markers represent the second-most ancient divergence right after those typically found in Khoisan peoples.[19] Recent advances in genetics shed some light on the origins of the various pygmy groups. Researchers found "an early divergence of the ancestors of Pygmy hunter–gatherers and farming populations 60,000 years ago, followed by a split of the Pygmies' ancestors into the Western and Eastern Pygmy groups 20,000 years ago."[20]

New evidence suggests East and West African Pygmy children have different growth patterns. The difference between the two groups may indicate the Pygmies’ short stature did not start with their common ancestor, but instead evolved independently in adapting to similar environments, which adds support that some sets of genes related to height were advantageous in Eastern Pygmy populations, but not in Western Pygmy populations.[21][22][20]


This is enough for one day, and it’s time for the TV news. Best wishes to all.