June 23, 2016


News and Views


CLIPS FROM MY EMAILS: I ASSUME THIS GRAYSON STATEMENT IS TRUE. If it is, the Dems are trying to engineer the party very aggressively to a fine degree in more ways than I had realized. Could it be that they just don’t like Progressive thinking? Or is it the fact that Grayson is another one who is just too boldly independent? Elizabeth Warren has thrown in the towel recently, probably hoping for the Vice Presidency. I do believe we need a new party.

Alan Grayson
Jun 21 at 8:36 PM

Dear Lucy,

DC party bosses ordered a US Senator down to Florida this week, to try to prop up my primary opponent’s flagging campaign. Hilarity ensued.

In a lengthy keynote speech, that Senator really had no choice but to try to say something – anything – good about my primary opponent. It was Mission Impossible. Here’s what he came up with:
(1) My opponent drove him from the airport to the event.
(2) My opponent has the same last name as someone already in the Senate. (They are unrelated.)

We really need to tell the DC Establishment to stick it where the sun don’t shine. Please make a contribution of $23 or more to our campaign for justice, equality and peace – today >>
My opponent knows how to drive?? That’s it?? Are we electing a U.S. Senator, or a chauffeur? (Irony alert: my opponent is a trust fund baby, so he knows a lot about chauffeurs.)

Here are some things the bosses couldn’t say:
“He has passed major legislation.” He hasn’t.
“He has passed minor legislation.” He hasn’t.
“He has organized major grassroots efforts.” He hasn’t.
“He is an expert in a certain legislative domain.” He isn’t.
“He has a lifelong history of helping people.” He doesn’t.
Or even the lame “He was a success in the private sector.” He wasn’t.
In fact, he has demonstrated only one major job skill: signing the back of PAC checks. Which actually gets you far in dirty, corrupt Washington, DC. In return, he hands over his voting card.

I’ve been listening to my opponent’s flacks and his “surrogates” all year now. They can’t even invent a reason why he should be a U.S. Senator. All they can say on his behalf is that he’s not me.
I would call him an empty suit, but the emperor has no clothes. No clothes at all.

But he’s exactly what the corrupt, arrogant, and malicious party bosses want. He’s obedient. He’s a callow tool. For them, that makes him perfect.

They’re forgetting one thing, though. They don’t decide who will be the Democratic nominee.
We do.

Sick and tired of the machinations and manipulations of the party politburo? Then do something about it. Donate $23 to our campaign today, and we’ll give them a licking they’ll never forget >>

Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson


As with all of these political emails he then asks for money, but that’s just the way the game is played. I deal with it by giving nothing or almost nothing, but passing on the message if I like it.


And another email – a good Progressive from Colorado:

Representative Salazar

I am honored that Senator Sanders believes in the progressive battles I have waged here in Colorado. Whether it is getting rid of debtors prisons or sponsoring the "Family Medical Leave Insurance Act", fighting for the disadvantaged, low and middle income families is my controlling goal. As Senator Sanders said "the revolution is not about him, it is about us". Together we will fight the corporate machine that threatens our democracy. Together we will fight for the middle class. Together we will fight the social and moral injustice that has plagued our country. We can no longer watch while our democracy crumbles under the influence of big banks and big corporations. It is time to act, and with your donations I will do my part to regain what is rightfully the will of the PEOPLE. Thank you again for your trust and contributions. It means the world to me.


http://cohousedems.com/joe-salazar/

Rep. Joe Salazar (D-Thornton)
June 22, 2016

Joe Salazar is the representative in House District 31, which includes most of Thornton and parts of unincorporated Adams County. Rep. Salazar is vice-chair of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee and also serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Salazar has spent his entire career making sure the rights of hard-working Coloradans are protected, and has brought that same focus to the legislature. In the 2014 session Rep. Salazar passed legislation that reduced the fees an individual must pay when making a a request for public records under Colorado’s Open Records Act. He also sponsored legislation that prevents individuals with serious mental illnesses from being being [sic] placed in long term solitary confinement. Rep. Salazar also sponsored a bill to formally outlaw court-ordered jail time for being unable to pay court fines, a practice that in previous centuries was known as debtors prison.

During the 2013 legislative session, he was co-prime sponsor of a bill that updates Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, allowing employees to seek damages and attorney’s fees in cases of intentional discrimination or harassment for factors including race, gender and sexual orientation.

Rep. Salazar is a Colorado native whose Spanish and indigenous roots in Colorado and New Mexico go back hundreds of years. He was a civil rights and criminal investigator for the State of Colorado, working for the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies in the civil rights division and division of insurance.

Rep. Salazar left the division of insurance in 2000 to attend law school at the University of Denver College of Law, where he became a founding member of the American Bar Association, Law Student Division, and a member of the Native American Law Student and Latino Law Student Associations. He continued to assist the civil rights division on cases, and in 2001 the State of Colorado awarded him a “Subject Matter Expert” certification in the area of civil rights.

After law school Rep. Salazar started his own firm focusing on cases involving employment law, civil rights, constitutional law and federal Indian law. He has successfully taken on many cases involving employment and constitutional issues, and in 2012 he was recognized by the publication Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in the area of civil rights and constitutional law.

Rep. Salazar’s family has owned farm and ranch land in Colorado’s San Luis Valley and in northern New Mexico for generations. He was four years old when he moved with his parents to Thornton, and grew up as the city grew, attending Woodglenn Elementary, Northeast Junior High School and Thornton High School, where he graduated in 1989.

He lives in Thornton with his wife, Jessica. He has two daughters, Alexandra and Lili.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-immigration-obama-executive-action-affirms-lower-court-ruling/

Supreme Court ties in case challenging Obama's immigration actions
CBS NEWS
June 23, 2016, 10:58 AM

FILE - In this Feb. 13, 2016 file photo, the Supreme Court building is seen Washington. JON ELSWICK, AP


The Supreme Court revealed it tied 4-4 in the case challenging President Obama's 2014 immigration actions, affirming the lower court's ruling that has blocked the policy from taking effect.

At issue in United States v. Texas were Obama's 2014 expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that was unveiled in 2012 and the creation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The case was argued before the high court in April.

The DACA expansion would defer deportations for people who entered the U.S. as children before January 1, 2010. The current cutoff is June 15, 2007. The DAPA portion would be new and would defer deportations for the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the U.S. for at least five years.

Twenty-six states sued President Obama over his executive action to grant 5 million undocumented immigrants a reprieve from deportation last year.

The programs were put on hold last November by the the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which upheld a Texas-based federal judge's injunction against the executive actions.

Senate Republicans have decided not to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia who died in February because of the upcoming presidential election.

While the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday isn't a ruling, it does deal a blow to the Obama administration because it leaves millions of people who might have benefited from the proposed programs in legal limbo.

Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, considered the decision a victory for Republicans who believed the president overstepped his executive powers and violated the Constitution.

"This is a win for the constitution, it's a win for Congress," Ryan told reporters at his weekly press conference Thursday. "Congress, not the president, writes our laws. And today the Supreme Court validated that."

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, called the Supreme Court's decision "unacceptable" and "shows us all just how high the stakes are in this election." She also blasted Senate Republicans for deciding not to consider Garland's nomination.

"Today's decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President's legal authority," she said in a statement. "But in addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court."

If elected, Clinton said she would continue to defend Mr. Obama's proposed policies and would introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship within her first 100 days as president.



The Dems need more and more highly competent candidates to step up for legislative positions and be able to win. That means strengthening our party from the grassroots level as Sanders recommends, and the more Progressive the better. My Grayson email above speaks of “a US Senator” who has been sent to FL to fight for his opponent. Clearly the DNC is against progressives who can’t be bought or threatened to toe the line.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-man-who-says-he-was-omar-mateen-gay-lover-speaks-out-univision/

Man who says he was Omar Mateen's gay lover speaks out
CBS/AP June 21, 2016, 10:19 PM

Play VIDEO -- Report: Man claims to have been Omar Mateen's lover
Photograph -- cbsintvmateen.jpg, Man who is being called "Miguel" speaks in an interview with Univision about his alleged relationship with Orlando shooter Omar Mateen. His appearance was altered to protect his identity. UNIVISION
Play VIDEO -- AG Loretta Lynch: Orlando gunman's motive may never be known
50 PHOTOS -- Mass shooting at Orlando nightclub
Play VIDEO -- What we've learned from Orlando shooting documents


ORLANDO -- A man who says he was Orlando shooter Omar Mateen's gay lover is speaking out following the attack on Pulse nightclub that left 49 people dead, and dozens more injured.

In an interview with Univision anchor Maria Elena Salinas, the man -- who was called "Miguel" to protect his identity -- said he first met Mateen on the gay dating app Grindr.

Univision reported the FBI told the network that investigators have spoken with this man, but a law enforcement official would neither confirm nor deny this to CBS News.

The official told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton that Mateen was a frequent user of online dating sites seeking relationships with both men and women.

Men and women have come forward to the FBI claiming to have had a relationship with Mateen, according to the law enforcement official, and all of those claims are being investigated.

Miguel said in an interview with Univision that Mateen, who was killed by police during the rampage on the Pulse nightclub early on June 12, was gay. He described his relationship with Mateen as "friends with benefits."

He said the sexual relationship lasted about two months, and they met at a hotel in Orlando between 15 and 20 times.

Miguel told Univison that he believes Mateen intentionally targeted Latinos in retribution for feeling rejected by Puerto Ricans.

"I believe this is not terrorism," Miguel said, despite investigators saying Mateen called 911 and posted to Facebook to pledge allegiance to ISIS during the rampage.

Rather, Miguel claimed Mateen was acting on revenge after being with a Puerto Rican man whom he later learned was HIV positive.

"He hate gay Puerto Ricans for all the stuff he did to him," Miguel said. "I believe this crazy horrible thing he did was for revenge."

Miguel said that Mateen's wife knew he was gay, and that his father forced him into an arranged marriage.

Miguel added that he and Mateen also talked about religion.

"He said Muslim religion is beautiful, beautiful religion, where everything is about love," he said. "Everybody is welcome. Gay, trans, bisexual... everybody."

Miguel said that Mateen never appeared to be violent.

"He was looking for love," Miguel said. "He was looking to be embraced."

Investigators have said Mateen "cased" the Pulse nightclub prior to the night of the massacre. There has also been speculation about the gunman's sexuality.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the situation previously told CBS News that club-goers have told investigators that Mateen had been at Pulse numerous times previously. Additionally, other media outlets have heard several stories of Mateen popping up and conversing with men on gay dating apps.

Jim Van Horn, 71, said Mateen was a "regular" at the popular Pulse nightclub.

Van Horn, a retired pharmacist, said he met Mateen once, and the younger man talked about his ex-wife. But Van Horn said his friends soon "told me they didn't want me talking to him, because they thought he was a strange person."

The Orlando Sentinel and other news organizations quoted other regulars from Pulse who said they had seen Mateen there a number of times, and many said he was at best strange, at worst a little scary.

"Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent," said Ty Smith, who remembered seeing Mateen inside at least a dozen times.

Asked about his son's sexual orientation last week, Seddique Mir Mateen said he did not believe his son was gay.

"To me, that is wrong," Mateen's father told CBS News correspondent David Begnaud.

The elder Mateen said he learned of the speculation from news reports, but as far as he was concerned, "I didn't see any of it and I don't believe that was the case."

While it is still possible Mateen was just very closely surveying his chosen target for terror, former senior FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole told CBS News that doesn't seem likely.

"This to me suggests somebody that may have had sexual identity issues and may have actually been struggling with the idea that he himself was gay and that would add a different motive and a different perspective on the case," O'Toole said.



“Rather, Miguel claimed Mateen was acting on revenge after being with a Puerto Rican man whom he later learned was HIV positive. "He hate gay Puerto Ricans for all the stuff he did to him," Miguel said. "I believe this crazy horrible thing he did was for revenge." Miguel said that Mateen's wife knew he was gay, and that his father forced him into an arranged marriage. …. A U.S. official with knowledge of the situation previously told CBS News that club-goers have told investigators that Mateen had been at Pulse numerous times previously. Additionally, other media outlets have heard several stories of Mateen popping up and conversing with men on gay dating apps. Jim Van Horn, 71, said Mateen was a "regular" at the popular Pulse nightclub. …. The Orlando Sentinel and other news organizations quoted other regulars from Pulse who said they had seen Mateen there a number of times, and many said he was at best strange, at worst a little scary. "Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent," said Ty Smith, who remembered seeing Mateen inside at least a dozen times. …. While it is still possible Mateen was just very closely surveying his chosen target for terror, former senior FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole told CBS News that doesn't seem likely. "This to me suggests somebody that may have had sexual identity issues and may have actually been struggling with the idea that he himself was gay and that would add a different motive and a different perspective on the case," O'Toole said.”


Even if he was bisexual, he still had known ties with the mosque which produced several terrorists. The FBI should have been watching him more closely. That’s the whole point of the Terror Watch List and our massive file of suspicious telephone conversations. They still were not “connecting the dots.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/freddie-gray-caesar-goodson-verdict/

Freddie Gray case: Caesar Goodson cleared of all charges
CBS/AP
June 23, 2016, 10:51 AM

Play VIDEO -- Hung jury in Freddie Gray death trial sparks protests in Baltimore
Photograph -- Baltimore Police Officer Caesar Goodson leaves the courthouse at the end of day four of the murder trial of black detainee Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland, on June 14, 2016. REUTERS/BRYAN WOOLSTON


BALTIMORE -- The judge was unequivocal as he explained why he found Officer Caesar Goodson not guilty of all charges in the death of Freddie Gray, whose neck was broken inside his transport wagon: Prosecutors showed no evidence of a crime.

The acquittal of the police driver in the death of the 25-year-old arrestee is the most significant blow yet to their efforts to hold police accountable after protests and rioting in the troubled city.

The failure raises the prospect of whether any convictions can be obtained, and if State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby should simply give up trying the case in criminal court.

Throughout the legal proceedings, prosecutors' tactics have been maligned, CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues reports.

In December, Officer William Porter walked free after a hung jury. Last month in another bench trial, Baltimore Judge Barry Williams found Officer Edward Nero not guilty. Both officers faced lesser charges than Goodson.

At the start of Goodson's trial earlier this month, Williams scolded prosecutors for failing to turn evidence over to the defense about another prisoner in the transport van with Gray.

Mosby was in court to hear the verdict, and appeared crestfallen as she hurried out of the courthouse, climbing into a black SUV that sped down the street, away from the crowd.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said in a statement posted to Twitter that Goodson still faces a police administrative review.

"We once again ask the citizens to be patient and to allow the entire process to come to a conclusion," she said.

Follow
Mayor Rawlings-Blake ✔ @MayorSRB
My statement on the judge's decision in the criminal trial of Officer Caesar Goodson #GoodsonTrial pic.twitter.com/t9TYH0MHwF
11:21 AM - 23 Jun 2016 · Baltimore, MD, United States
58 58 Retweets 20 20 likes
Rawlings-Blake's likely successor, State Sen. Catherine Pugh, pleaded for patience.

"Although people may disagree with the verdict, it is important to respect each other and to respect our neighborhoods and our communities," Pugh said.

Gray's death made his name a rallying cry for the growing Black Lives Matter movement and sparked more outrage nationwide over how black people are treated by police and the criminal justice system.

But the case hasn't fit quite so neatly into the American narrative of white authorities imposing justice unfairly on black people. In this case, the defendant, trial judge, state's attorney and mayor are African-American; at the time of Gray's death, so was the police chief.

After the verdict, Black Lives Matter activist and Baltimore native DeRay Mckesson aimed his criticism at the entire system.

"Today is a reminder that there is a set of laws, policies and police union contracts across the country that will protect any form of police behavior," he said.

Goodson was the only one of the six officers charged in Gray's death to be accused of murder.

Williams said the state also failed to prove manslaughter, assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office.

"There has been no evidence that this defendant intended for a crime to happen," Williams said, adding that "the state had a duty to show the defendant corruptly failed in his duty, not just made a mistake."

Prosecutors said Goodson was criminally negligent because he didn't buckle Gray into a seat belt to keep him from slamming into the walls of the van's metal compartment after officers bound his hands and feet.

The state also said Goodson exhibited a disregard for Gray's life when he chose not to call a medic after Gray repeatedly indicated that he wanted to go to a hospital.

But Goodson wouldn't talk to investigators or take the stand at trial, and there were no witnesses or cameras to show what happened inside his van, leaving the state with slim evidence of intent to harm.

"The state failed to prove the defendant knew or should have known that Mr. Gray needed medical care," the judge said.

The judge said Goodson wouldn't have been able to determine whether Gray was injured between the second and fifth stops on the 45-minute trip, because only after the van finally arrived at the Western District station house did officers observe Gray with blood and saliva on his face, and evidence that he'd become incontinent, Williams said.

"Unlike in a shooting or a stabbing, or a car accident, this injury manifests itself internally," Williams said, citing conflicting testimony from medical experts. "If the doctors weren't clear, how would a person without medical training know?"

The judge also dismissed the "rough ride" theory, which he called the centerpiece of the state's case. Proving it required evidence of actions and intent, and the state provided neither, he said.

"Seemingly the state wants this court to assume, because Mr. Gray was injured, that the defendant gave him a rough ride," Williams said, adding, "there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant gave Mr. Gray a rough ride."

Gray was arrested April 12, 2015, after running from an officer on bike patrol outside a public housing project. A neighbor's video showed him handcuffed behind his back and hoisted into Goodson's van, which made six stops on his odyssey to the nearby station house.

The violence following Gray's death a week later forced Maryland to bring in the National Guard. Rawlings-Blake fired the police commissioner and then abandoned her re-election campaign. The Justice Department is formally investigating allegations of widespread police abuse.



“The acquittal of the police driver in the death of the 25-year-old arrestee is the most significant blow yet to their efforts to hold police accountable after protests and rioting in the troubled city. The failure raises the prospect of whether any convictions can be obtained, and if State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby should simply give up trying the case in criminal court. Throughout the legal proceedings, prosecutors' tactics have been maligned, CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues reports. …. At the start of Goodson's trial earlier this month, Williams scolded prosecutors for failing to turn evidence over to the defense about another prisoner in the transport van with Gray. Mosby was in court to hear the verdict, and appeared crestfallen as she hurried out of the courthouse, climbing into a black SUV that sped down the street, away from the crowd. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said in a statement posted to Twitter that Goodson still faces a police administrative review. …. After the verdict, Black Lives Matter activist and Baltimore native DeRay Mckesson aimed his criticism at the entire system. "Today is a reminder that there is a set of laws, policies and police union contracts across the country that will protect any form of police behavior," he said. Goodson was the only one of the six officers charged in Gray's death to be accused of murder. …. "There has been no evidence that this defendant intended for a crime to happen," Williams said, adding that "the state had a duty to show the defendant corruptly failed in his duty, not just made a mistake." Prosecutors said Goodson was criminally negligent because he didn't buckle Gray into a seat belt to keep him from slamming into the walls of the van's metal compartment after officers bound his hands and feet. The state also said Goodson exhibited a disregard for Gray's life when he chose not to call a medic after Gray repeatedly indicated that he wanted to go to a hospital. …. Gray was arrested April 12, 2015, after running from an officer on bike patrol outside a public housing project.”


I agree with DeRay Mckesson. The whole court system unites against outside charges from any source, regardless of their virtue. They cover up for each other’s sins. Terms like “the blue wall of silence,” define it dramatically and succinctly. Goodson’s failure to buckle him in and likewise to take him to the hospital when he complained of injury are at the very least negligent and against police orders. I personally doubt that the driver specifically intended for him to die, but it was one of his duties to belt the prisoner in, and every person who claims injury in one of these cases is supposed to be taken to a hospital first, and jail later if they’re proven fit. The latter issue has come up in several other of these brutality cases. No one who is not a medical doctor should make the decision on his own that the prisoner does NOT need medical help. In at least two cases an officer stated that he “thought the prisoner was malingering,” but a law officer is not competent to make that decision. The whole problem in most of these cases is that police officers are given broad powers of personal discretion, when they should be following specific rules and supervision from above. In the absence of such clear-cut rules, we as a society need to look at the prevalent problems and make some rules. An officer should call the station, speak to his supervisor and ASK what to do. I also, will say again, that “running from the police” is not really a crime at all, or shouldn’t be, and certainly not one deserving the death penalty.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gunman-viernheim-germany-opens-fire-movie-theater-reports-n597676

Viernheim Theater Gunman Has Been Killed: German Officials
by ANDY ECKARDT and FELIX GUSSONE, MD
JUN 23 2016, 1:40 PM ET

Play Video -- Armed Police Respond to Gunfire in Movie Theater 0:51
Image: Viernheim, Heavily-armed police run outside of the movie theater complex in Viernheim, Germany. Alexander Scheuber / Getty Images


VIERNHEIM, Germany — A masked gunman who reportedly fired shots and took hostages in a German movie theater complex Thursday has been killed, according to officials.

The drama unfolded at the Kinopolis movie complex on a sunny afternoon in the southwestern town of Viernheim.

Guri Blakaj, 21, works as a cashier at the cinema and told NBC News he initially thought the gunman was a customer in costume.

"I asked him if he wanted money and he only said we should do what he says," Blakaj explained, describing how he and his colleagues were instructed to close the front doors and lay on the floor.

"We laid on the floor and I pushed the silent alarm," Blakaj said. The gunman — who the cashier described as "confused" and carrying something resembling a rifle — then told Blakaj to go upstairs.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Andy Eckardt ✔ @ameckardt
Eyewitness: gunman "appeared confused", wore mask + had long rifle. About 40 people in cinema at time, many kids
12:55 PM - 23 Jun 2016
1 1 Retweet 1 1 like

While in the elevator on his way up, Blakaj said he heard shots.

Police special forces quickly responded to the scene, with footage from outside the theater showed heavily armed officers strapping on bulletproof vests and running towards the building as sirens blared.

Local Interior Minister Peter Beuth later told a parliamentary debate that initial reports suggested a gunman had fired several shots and taken hostages before being shot dead by police.

There were no other injuries and the hostages are all safe, police later confirmed to NBC News.

Police have not identified the suspect or a potential motive behind the incident.

Viernheim, a town of about 32,000, is about 45 miles south of Frankfurt.

Streets around the movie theater were blocked off and a police helicopter hovered in the air after the incident ended. Armed police special forces remained in position around local buildings.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Andy Eckardt ✔ @ameckardt
Heavily armed special police forces still at back of cinema in #Viernheim, theatre being treated as "crime scene"
12:18 PM - 23 Jun 2016
17 17 Retweets 18 18 likes

The cinema had several movies listed to show throughout the afternoon, including Hollywood productions like "Alice in Wonderland" and "Angry Birds."

Andy Eckardt ANDY ECKARDT TWITTER
Felix Gussone, MD FELIX GUSSONE, MD
CONTRIBUTORS ALEXANDER SMITH, MATTHEW GRIMSON and ALASTAIR JAMIESON
TOPICS WORLD
FIRST PUBLISHED JUN 23 2016, 10:43 AM ET



https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=381797&f=20&view=unread

Incident in German Town
Postby Kelinfort » Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:42 am

http://m.independent.ie/world-news/euro ... 27535.html

Reports are coming in from the town of Viernheim that there's been a shooting at a theater in the heart of town. Right now, time reported there's been 20-50 casualties, although this is breaking right now.

Edit1: The shooter has been killed and it's possible many of these injuries are due to tear gas exposure.

Edit2: We're still waiting for more details, but it appears a real gun was not used and all of the injuries were caused by tear gas.



EXCERPT, NBC -- “Guri Blakaj, 21, works as a cashier at the cinema and told NBC News he initially thought the gunman was a customer in costume. "I asked him if he wanted money and he only said we should do what he says," Blakaj explained, describing how he and his colleagues were instructed to close the front doors and lay on the floor. "We laid on the floor and I pushed the silent alarm," Blakaj said. The gunman — who the cashier described as "confused" and carrying something resembling a rifle — then told Blakaj to go upstairs. …. While in the elevator on his way up, Blakaj said he heard shots. Police special forces quickly responded to the scene, with footage from outside the theater showed heavily armed officers strapping on bulletproof vests and running towards the building as sirens blared. …. Police have not identified the suspect or a potential motive behind the incident. Viernheim, a town of about 32,000, is about 45 miles south of Frankfurt. Streets around the movie theater were blocked off and a police helicopter hovered in the air after the incident ended. Armed police special forces remained in position around local buildings.”


I was hoping to find how many, if any, were killed, but there was no mention of the matter in the first article above, and very little in the second. It mentions casualties but no confirmation of deaths, instead suggesting the tear gas may have caused the 20 to 50 to be injured. If I get more information before the day is over I will insert it here. It also doesn’t say what the cause of the incident was, and there is no mention of terrorism. According to m.independent.ie the gun was not real – a kind of accurate toy, apparently. People really shouldn’t do that, because when the police swarm in they will be carrying real guns and will use them.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-affirmative-action-college-admissions-n582981

Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in College Admissions
by PETE WILLIAMS
NEWS JUN 23 2016, 10:14 AM ET

Play video -- SCOTUS upholds affirmative action programs 2:38
Related: SCOTUS Hears Case That Could Kill College Affirmative Action
Related: More than 160 Asian-American Groups File Briefs in Support of Affirmative Action
Image: Abigail Fisher, Abigail Fisher, who sued the University of Texas when she was not offered a spot at the university's flagship Austin campus in 2008, stands at a news conference at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, on June 24, 2013. Charles Dharapak / AP, file
Photograph -- A demonstrator holds a sign aloft as the affirmative action in university admissions case was being heard at the Supreme Court in Washington, December 9, 2015. KEVIN LAMARQUE / Reuters
Image: A demonstrator holds a sign aloft as the affirmative action in university admissions case was being heard at the Supreme Court in Washington


The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the affirmative action program at the University of Texas at Austin, ending a protracted legal battle.

The vote was 4-3.

It was not immediately clear how far-reaching the ruling will be because of the specifics of the Texas program at issue. However, the court offered a grudging agreement that in the Texas case the program is needed.

"The Court's affirmance of the University's admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion for the court. "It is the University's ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies."

Justice Clarence Thomas, in joining the dissent, said the decision "is irreconcilable with strict scrutiny, rests on pernicious assumptions about race, and departs from many of our precedents."

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she previously worked on the case as United States solicitor general.

A Texas law guarantees admission to the university for students in roughly the top ten percent of the graduating class of any Texas high school. To fill the remaining slots, about one fourth of each entering class, the school considers several other factors, including an applicant's race.

That last step was the program under court challenge, upheld by the justices Thursday.

The school said students learn better when there's diversity on campus and within racial groups. But a woman who was denied admission, Abigail Fisher, filed a lawsuit claiming the diversity standard was too vague to justify making distinctions based on race.

The Supreme Court gave a limited victory to the university three years ago, agreeing that campus diversity is a worthy goal. But the justices instructed an appeals court to review whether considering an applicant's race was necessary to achieving it. When that court said it was, Fisher again appealed, leading to Thursday's decision.

She argued that the Top Ten plan did enough to increase minority enrollment and create a racially diverse campus. In order to justify considering an applicant's race, she claimed, the university should have a more concrete goal, because racial classifications must pass a rigid legal test.

But the school said The Top Ten percent plan can go only so far, because the Texas public school system remains largely segregated. It sought the flexibility to admit minority students who, though they were not in the top ten percent of their classes, have valuable experiences, such as an African-American student who was a student body president in a mostly white school.


The NAACP argued that eliminating affirmative action "would set in concrete a caste system in which black and Latino UT students likely would be the products of underfunded and underperforming Texas high schools, while white UT students would likely be derived from better funded and better performing high schools."

Many of the nation's highly selective universities, from Yale in the East to Stanford in the West, urged the court to uphold affirmative action. So did 45 Fortune 500 companies and 36 former leaders of the US military who said they need leaders from diverse backgrounds.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/affirmance

Affirmance

A declaration by an appellate court that a judgment, order, or decree of a lower court that has been brought before it for review is valid and will be upheld.
Associated concepts: affirmance of a contract, confirmation of a judgment, ratification of a voidable contract
Associated concepts: affirmed without opinion, en banc affirmance, unanimous affirmance



https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf

Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade, Princeton University
Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University
Joan L. Walling, Princeton University


Objective. This study examines how preferences for different types of applicants
exercised by admission offices at elite universities influence the number and composition
of admitted students. Methods. Logistic regression analysis is used to link
information on the admission decision for 124,374 applications to applicants’ SAT
scores, race, athletic ability, and legacy status, among other variables. Results. Elite
universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT
scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes. A smaller, but
still important, preference is shown to Hispanic students and to children of alumni.
The athlete admission ‘‘advantage’’ has been growing, while the underrepresented
minority advantage has declined. Conclusions. Elite colleges and universities extend
preferences to many types of students, yet affirmative action—the only preference
given to underrepresented minority applicants—is the one surrounded by the most
controversy.

Admission to elite colleges and universities in the United States is not now
and never has been based solely on academic merit. The debate leading up to
the June 2003 U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the two University of Michigan
affirmative action cases (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003; Grutter v. Bollinger,
2003) focused national attention on the preference that most academically
selective institutions give to members of underrepresented minority groups,
including African-American and Hispanic, but not Asian, students. The
Court’s decisions legitimated the use of an applicant’s self-described race or
ethnicity as one among many factors that university officials may consider in
a ‘‘highly individualized, holistic review’’ of each candidate’s qualifications
for admission (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003:2343). Although underrepresented
minority status may be one of the most conspicuous of the so-called bonus
factors, undergraduate admission officers in assembling a first-year class that
best meets institutional goals and values routinely give extra weight to numerous
other student attributes, including athletic ability, musical talent,
rural background, lower socioeconomic status, gender, alumni connections,
leadership ability, geography, and unusual life experiences (Fetter, 1995;
Freedman, 2003; Zwick, 2002).1
Admission preferences cause concern not just because they raise constitutional
issues but also because the decision-making process at elite institutions
is to a large extent subjective and therefore relatively opaque to
outsiders (Bunzel, 1996; Paul, 1995). Perceived fairness is open to question
under these circumstances, and candidates who are denied admission may be
likely to attribute a rejection to preferential treatment for members of other
groups (Kane, 2003). Alumni parents of children who are not offered admission
frequently interpret the denials as a consequence of places being
offered to minority students (Fetter, 1995). Allegations of discriminatory
admission policies against Asian-American applicants at elite universities led
to compliance reviews by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights in the late 1980s at Harvard and the University of California–Berkeley
(U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1992). Rising proportions of Asian
Americans in applicant pools were not fully reflected in the composition of
admitted students, and there were concerns that Asian Americans were being
squeezed out by preferences for African-American and Hispanic applicants,
and for athletes and children of alumni, the majority of whom are white
(Office for Civil Rights, 1991; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1992)
This article looks more closely at the admission practices of elite universities.
Preferences play the largest role at the most academically selective
institutions (National Association for College Admission Counseling,
2003). Less selective colleges and universities, by definition, admit almost
everyone who applies (Kane, 1998).



EXCERPTS NBC -- “The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the affirmative action program at the University of Texas at Austin, ending a protracted legal battle. The vote was 4-3. It was not immediately clear how far-reaching the ruling will be because of the specifics of the Texas program at issue. However, the court offered a grudging agreement that in the Texas case the program is needed. …. It was not immediately clear how far-reaching the ruling will be because of the specifics of the Texas program at issue. However, the court offered a grudging agreement that in the Texas case the program is needed. …. A Texas law guarantees admission to the university for students in roughly the top ten percent of the graduating class of any Texas high school. To fill the remaining slots, about one fourth of each entering class, the school considers several other factors, including an applicant's race. That last step was the program under court challenge, upheld by the justices Thursday. The school said students learn better when there's diversity on campus and within racial groups. But a woman who was denied admission, Abigail Fisher, filed a lawsuit claiming the diversity standard was too vague to justify making distinctions based on race. …. But the school said The Top Ten percent plan can go only so far, because the Texas public school system remains largely segregated. It sought the flexibility to admit minority students who, though they were not in the top ten percent of their classes, have valuable experiences, such as an African-American student who was a student body president in a mostly white school. …. A Texas law guarantees admission to the university for students in roughly the top ten percent of the graduating class of any Texas high school. To fill the remaining slots, about one fourth of each entering class, the school considers several other factors, including an applicant's race. That last step was the program under court challenge, upheld by the justices Thursday. …. The Supreme Court gave a limited victory to the university three years ago, agreeing that campus diversity is a worthy goal. But the justices instructed an appeals court to review whether considering an applicant's race was necessary to achieving it. When that court said it was, Fisher again appealed, leading to Thursday's decision.”


EXCERPTS – PRINCETON – “This study examines how preferences for different types of applicants exercised by admission offices at elite universities influence the number and composition of admitted students. …. Results. Elite universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes. A smaller, but still important, preference is shown to Hispanic students and to children of alumni. The athlete admission ‘‘advantage’’ has been growing, while the underrepresented minority advantage has declined. …. including an applicant's race. That last step was the program under court challenge, upheld by the justices Thursday. The school said students learn better when there's diversity on campus and within racial groups. But a woman who was denied admission, Abigail Fisher, filed a lawsuit claiming the diversity standard was too vague to justify making distinctions based on race. …. But the school said The Top Ten percent plan can go only so far, because the Texas public school system remains largely segregated. …. focused national attention on the preference that most academically elective institutions give to members of underrepresented minority groups, including African-American and Hispanic, but not Asian, students. The
Court’s decisions legitimated the use of an applicant’s self-described race or
ethnicity as one among many factors that university officials may consider in
a ‘‘highly individualized, holistic review’’ of each candidate’s qualifications
for admission (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003:2343). …. Admission preferences cause concern not just because they raise constitutional issues but also because the decision-making process at elite institutions is to a large extent subjective and therefore relatively opaque to
outsiders (Bunzel, 1996; Paul, 1995).”



“… a grudging agreement….” This is sad, because the Supreme Court should be above the kind of racial politics that colleges do still use to keep their campuses white. Another article that I was looking at several months ago mentioned also the American Indian, Asian American Jewish and simply economically disadvantaged students, who are excluded except for a small percentage compared to their population in the country. Colleges have been excluding people because they are of a non-white race for years, and do to this day, so the Supreme Court absolutely should remain active in the matter.

I personally believe in state supported colleges, such as UNC which I attended in the 1970s. The quality of instruction and the more diverse population give students the “well-rounded” education that they need, and state colleges are considerably less expensive, at least for in state students. For graduate studies, in which case the student is going for a specialization and an established expertise in their subject, I think Ivy League schools who have a very strong program in that field are really better. Of course, I’m a person who doesn’t buy according to brand name and especially for the purpose of owning a high priced gadget or pair of shoes or education. We stress that kind of thing too much in this country, for a nation who should be trying to eliminate social distinctions rather than perpetuating them.



http://www.npr.org/2016/06/23/483211713/handguns-in-america-and-the-rise-of-the-concealed-carry-lifestyle

Handguns In America And The Rise Of The 'Concealed-Carry Lifestyle'
Heard on Fresh Air
June 23, 20162:35 PM ET

Photograph -- A marksman sights in on a target during a class for an Illinois concealed carry permit on February 2014. Scott Olson/Getty Images
THE TWO-WAY -- W.Va. House OKs Bill Letting People Carry Concealed Guns Without A Permit
U.S.
Related: Does Carrying A Pistol Make You Safer?
THE TWO-WAY -- Federal Appeals Court Says There Is No Right To Carry Concealed Weapons In Public



The mass shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando has led to a revival of the debate over assault weapons, but journalist Evan Osnos says the real growth in gun ownership is from small, concealed handguns.

"Something really profound has changed in the way that we use guns," Osnos tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "Concealed carry, as it's known, is now legal in all 50 states."

Osnos, who writes about the evolution of concealed carry in the current issue of The New Yorker, estimates that there are about 13 million people who are licensed to carry a concealed gun in the United States — more than 12 times the number of police officers and detectives in America.

He says that gun manufacturers market a "concealed-carry lifestyle," which uses fear to sell guns.

"If you are somebody who is considering buying a gun, or you've become part of this phenomenon of carrying a gun in daily life, you are constantly being reminded of ways in which you could encounter a threat," he says.

The concealed-carry movement is central to the gun-rights platform of organizations like the National Rifle Association, Osnos adds.

"The idea that you should be allowed, legally and constitutionally, to carry a gun almost anywhere ... is actually sort of the heart of what the gun rights movement believes is the future," he says.


Interview Highlights

On how the way we use guns has changed

For most of American history gun owners themselves basically frowned on the idea of carrying guns in everyday life. The head of the NRA in 1934 testified in Congress against what he described as the "promiscuous toting of guns." He said it has no place in everyday life.

Ronald Reagan, in fact, who was an icon in many ways of the American conservative movement that supports gun rights, he said in 1967 when he was governor of California that there is "no reason," as he put it, "why a person should be carrying a loaded gun down the street."

And yet, over the last 30 years a deep change has happened in American law and in American habit where state by state, places that once prohibited or strictly controlled the ability to carry a gun in everyday life, have systematically relaxed those rules to the point that concealed carry is now legal in all 50 states. ... So something really profound has changed in the way that we use guns in America.

On taking a gun class and being told to assume that others are armed

Evan Osnos:
“... in order to justify its existence, [the concealed-carry movement] has to remind people, it has to persuade people, in effect, that the world is a dangerous place for them.”

This is one of the really complicated pieces of what's known as the gun-carry revolution, or the concealed-carry movement, and that's the fact that in order to justify its existence, it has to remind people, it has to persuade people, in effect, that the world is a dangerous place for them.

So, for instance, a gun instructor will tell you about home invasions or muggers or druggies or ... these days often you'll be told, "Did you see the news about that recent mass shooting? What would you have done if you had been in that situation? Perhaps you would've been able to protect yourself."

And yet, at the same time, very often, that statement is followed by an almost reflexive assertion of the idea that "But God forbid we ever have to use our guns." And what I've found was that it's an atmosphere of heightened anxiety.

On the marketing of a "concealed-carry lifestyle"

The "concealed-carry lifestyle" refers to a set of products and a set of ideas around the decision to carry a gun everywhere you go. And that means that ... the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, which is this business based in Wisconsin that really sort of presents itself as a membership organization designed to look out for your interests and provide answers to your questions, it's also very much a vendor.

And what they do is they sell a kind of insurance that you can use in the event that you shoot somebody. So if that happens, for instance, then they'll subsidize your legal fees; they'll help you post bail; they'll provide legal advice about how you can respond, how you can assert your right to self-defense. And then, of course, they also sell training.

For instance, once I signed up, I was given a stream of videos about how a person might be attacked while going to their car in a parking garage and how they might use a gun to be able to defend themselves in that situation. What you find is that in a sense, the deeper that you get into the world of the Concealed Carry Association, or any of a number of businesses that have sprung up in order to take advantage of this opportunity, that you can become almost completely surrounded by information that is terrifying.

On a gun-ownership statistic that he finds revealing

The simple fact is that by bringing a gun into your life, by bringing it into your home, you significantly raise the risk of suicide, of homicide, of accidental gun death. The chances of a homicide of some kind doubles. That's not something that you hear about very often when you go out to purchase a gun.

On the original approach of a lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook parents

That case has been brought by parents of students who were killed at Sandy Hook and by one of the survivors and that case focuses on the marketing of guns. They've sued Remington Arms, which made the gun that was used in that massacre, and what they've said is that that gun was marketed to civilians in a way that violates fair-trade practices because, they say, that's a military weapon. It belongs, as they put it in their case, on the streets of Fallujah, not in Connecticut.

This is kind of an original approach because what they're doing is going really at the heart of the vulnerability of the gun movement. The gun industry is protected by a law that was passed in 2005 called the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. It's unique, really, in the history of American capitalism. What it does is it protects gun companies against any kind of lawsuit that tries to get civil damages because the gun was misused or used in a crime.

What this lawsuit has been able to do — a lot of people thought it was going to be thrown out before it got this far. ... It runs the possibility that it will force Remington Arms to open up its archives in the course of discovery, and to open for the lawyers and ultimately then for the public, a look into how they make the decisions to market to who they market to. How do they choose to call a military-style weapon suitable for civilian life? How do they, for instance, coordinate with video game makers, if that's what they do? How do they market their products on the Internet?



“He says that gun manufacturers market a "concealed-carry lifestyle," which uses fear to sell guns. .... Evan Osnos: “... in order to justify its existence, [the concealed-carry movement] has to remind people, it has to persuade people, in effect, that the world is a dangerous place for them.” …. And that means that ... the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, which is this business based in Wisconsin that really sort of presents itself as a membership organization designed to look out for your interests and provide answers to your questions, it's also very much a vendor. …. And what they do is they sell a kind of insurance that you can use in the event that you shoot somebody. So if that happens, for instance, then they'll subsidize your legal fees; they'll help you post bail; they'll provide legal advice about how you can respond, how you can assert your right to self-defense. And then, of course, they also sell training. …. They've sued Remington Arms, which made the gun that was used in that massacre, and what they've said is that that gun was marketed to civilians in a way that violates fair-trade practices because, they say, that's a military weapon. It belongs, as they put it in their case, on the streets of Fallujah, not in Connecticut. This is kind of an original approach because what they're doing is going really at the heart of the vulnerability of the gun movement. The gun industry is protected by a law that was passed in 2005 called the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. It's unique, really, in the history of American capitalism. What it does is it protects gun companies against any kind of lawsuit that tries to get civil damages because the gun was misused or used in a crime. …. It runs the possibility that it will force Remington Arms to open up its archives in the course of discovery, and to open for the lawyers and ultimately then for the public, a look into how they make the decisions to market to who they market to. How do they choose to call a military-style weapon suitable for civilian life? How do they, for instance, coordinate with video game makers, if that's what they do? How do they market their products on the Internet?"


The parents of Sandy Hook students have filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms to force them to show how they decide on their marketing practices; and to prove that Remington is in violation of fair-trade practices, in that a weapon designed for the military has been sold to civilians. This reminds me of the Philip Morris case so many years ago in which they were forced, kicking and screaming, to confirm that they had been aware for years that cigarettes cause cancer, and yet promoted them as safe and even healthful. That was when the tobacco companies were successfully required to put a stern warning giving the dangers of smoking on every cigarette pack or carton sold. Unfortunately, that still hasn’t stopped Americans from smoking, though it has cut down on it.

The information above about the U.S. Concealed Carry Association goes a long way to show at least one of the causes for the fevered hysteria about guns in general, most recently of the Open Carry followers, and the militant and absurd marches by fat and half shaved men through public and family oriented businesses such as Target, with AK47s strapped across their chests. Of course, the other cause is the intersection of testosterone and beer. The main cause, though, is the NRA’s rhetoric over the last 20 or more years leading to the 2005 law, Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. This is the first I’ve heard about the act, but it is certainly an influence on the above described members of the American barbarian class which seems to me to be growing. I’m sure they’ll all vote for Trump. I don’t remember hearing Trump saying anything about our gun culture, though. I don’t know how he missed that juicy subject. He probably will talk about it before the election in November.