June 3, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-praises-yamato-tanooka-boy-who-survived-after-abandonment-in-forest/

How boy abandoned in forest reacted when he was found
CBS/AP
June 3, 2016, 9:15 AM

Photograph -- 2016-06-03t033723z1886447097s1aethsawxaartrmadp3japan-missingboy.jpg, Takayuki Tanooka, father of 7-year-old boy Yamato Tanooka who went missing on May 28, 2016 after being left behind by his parents, was found alive, reacts as he speaks to the media in Hakodate on the northernmost Japanese main island of Hokkaido, Japan, in this photo taken by Kyodo on June 3, 2016. REUTERS


TOKYO -- Nearly a week after he was abandoned in the forest by his parents, the boy did not shed a tear when he was found safe Friday. The soldier who discovered him by chance in a military hut gave him two rice balls, which 7-year-old Yamato Tanooka ate ravenously. He looked a bit worn out but was "genki," the military said, using a Japanese word describing healthy children.

The boy's safe return was welcomed in a nation riveted by his disappearance and undergoing intense soul-searching about how it raises and disciplines its children.

Yamato's story, as pieced together from comments from the military and police, was admirable in resourcefulness and resilience.

His parents, trying to teach him a lesson for misbehaving and throwing rocks, made him get out of the car last Saturday on the northernmost main island of Hokkaido in a forest reputedly ridden with bears. They couldn't find him when they returned several minutes later.

Apparently walking for several kilometers, the boy found the empty hut in a military drill area and entered a door that had been left open. The longhouse-style hut had no heat or power and no food, but Yamato huddled between mattresses on the floor and drank water from the solitary faucet outside the hut for several days, local media reported.

CBSN anchor Reena Ninan reports that the boy was hospitalized with mild dehydration and hypothermia.

A massive manhunt, including 180 people and search dogs, had found no trace of him. The soldier who found him had not been part of the frenzied search effort, but soon the boy identified himself as Yamato Tanooka.

Appearing outside the hospital where the boy was flown in by helicopter, his father apologized, bowing deeply, thanked everyone for the rescue and vowed to do a better job as his dad.

"We have raised him with love all along," said the father, Takayuki Tanooka, fighting tears. "I really didn't think it would come to that. We went too far."

Military officials expressed admiration for the boy's perseverance, as the building where he was found was far from where he had disappeared and involved a rigorous uphill climb.

The boy had minor scratches on his arms and feet, but no serious health risks were found, a doctor who examined him said on nationally televised news.

Although going without water is dangerous even for a few days, people can survive longer without food, such as people who have fasted or gone on hunger strikes for a few weeks. While experts say a water-only diet for so long must have been painful, they boy apparently stayed at the hut for much of the time. More details on his experience were not immediately available.

Asked what he had told his son after he was found, the father said, "I told him I was so sorry for causing him such pain."

The nation welcomed the boy's safe return. Old photos of Yamato, wearing a cowboy hat here, holding up two fingers in a peace sign there, his bangs falling over a proud smile, were flashed across again and again on TV.

Daijiro Hashimoto, a former governor appearing on a talk show on TV Asahi, wondered how the boy had endured the loneliness, especially at night, and suggested that perhaps he had imagined he was on some adventure and was hiding in a secret camp.

"He had to keep a very positive attitude," Hashimoto said, reflecting widespread sentiment here. "He is fantastic. He didn't know how long it might take, and when he would ever be saved."

The boy's disappearance and the debate set off by the parents' decision resonated in an aging nation with a dearth of children, where child-raising is expensive and often requires financial sacrifice. Japanese culture also is not seen as promoting individual rights of children, but rather to view children almost as family property. Abandonment and child abuse are far more common in Japan than the stereotype of the doting parent and stay-at-home mom would suggest.

Yamato's parents are not officially under any police investigation for their actions.

Mitsuko Tateishi, an educator who has written a book urging mothers to take it easy, says many parents are isolated in Japan, get competitive in wanting their children to perform, and need advice especially from more experienced parents.

"The punishment this parent chose is unthinkable. They have no idea how to raise a child. They did not try to explain what was right and wrong," she said in a telephone interview. "A child is not a dog or a cat. You have to treat the child like a human individual."

Tateishi said Japan remains behind the West in protecting children, and she doubts any concrete action would be taken against these parents.

Still, a child welfare expert said abandonment of a child should be treated seriously. Tamae Arai, who heads a Tokyo ward's family support operations, said though she does not know the specifics of this case an investigation would be likely in a similar case to ensure a child is protected.

"Beating and kicking are not the only forms of child abuse. There is also neglect. Of course, we are all thrilled he was found, but it is important to note that there could be a serious problem here," she said.



"Nearly a week after he was abandoned in the forest by his parents, the boy did not shed a tear when he was found safe Friday. The soldier who discovered him by chance in a military hut gave him two rice balls, which 7-year-old Yamato Tanooka ate ravenously. He looked a bit worn out but was "genki," the military said, using a Japanese word describing healthy children. The boy's safe return was welcomed in a nation riveted by his disappearance and undergoing intense soul-searching about how it raises and disciplines its children. . . . The punishment this parent chose is unthinkable. They have no idea how to raise a child. They did not try to explain what was right and wrong," she said in a telephone interview. "A child is not a dog or a cat. You have to treat the child like a human individual." Tateishi said Japan remains behind the West in protecting children, and she doubts any concrete action would be taken against these parents.”


Do any of you remember the “Tiger Mom” who has written a book on a very strict parenting style? The idea is to produce an obedient and competitive child who will be a “winner.” That woman was Chinese, I think, and these parents are Japanese, but a Japanese father was shown on a TV documentary rapping his boy on the head with his knuckle every time he made a mistake in reciting his lessons. The boy’s face crumpled up with emotional pain. Shaming is no better than physical abuse. The writer of this article is correct. Parents need to talk with them and not at them; and no matter how many parents say that the Bible said “Spare the rod and spoil the child,” it’s still damaging, not the best teaching method because it imparts no information except “I’m angry.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sara-netanyahu-police-recommend-indicting-israel-local-media/

Police recommend indicting Israeli PM's wife, local media reports
CBS/AP
May 29, 2016, 11:29 AM

Photograph -- In this handout photo released by the Government Press Office, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, second right, and his wife Sara, left, seen, during a meeting with singer Madonna, at the Prime Minister's residence in Jerusalem, Sept. 4, 2009. AP PHOTO/GPO, AVI OHAYON


JERUSALEM - Israeli media say a police investigation has recommended indicting the wife of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over misuse of state funds and inflated household spending.

Channel 2 TV and other outlets reported Sunday that police believe they have enough evidence to bring Sara Netanyahu to trial. It said she used state funds to care for her late father and over-billed for meals.

In a statement, police announced the end of their investigation but offered few details.

A spokesman for the prime minister denied the accusations.

"Mrs. Netanyahu did not break any law, these are matters that do not even come close to breaking the law ... We are certain that when the authorities check the facts they will find that there is nothing in them," Netanyahu spokesman Nir Hefez said, according to Reuters.

The Netanyahus have long faced scrutiny over their spending. In a separate report by the state auditor on Tuesday, Reuters reports that the prime minister was criticized over free air tickets that he and his family received for travel abroad when he was finance minister more than a decade ago.

Sara Netanyahu in particular has been accused of using government funds to support her expensive tastes and alleged abusive behavior toward staff. As far back as 2000, police suspected the couple of conspiring with a government contractor in a kickback scheme, illegally keeping gifts, and obstructing justice.

In February, a former employee won a court case against her alleging he was subjected to abusive language and insults.



“Israeli media say a police investigation has recommended indicting the wife of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over misuse of state funds and inflated household spending. Channel 2 TV and other outlets reported Sunday that police believe they have enough evidence to bring Sara Netanyahu to trial. It said she used state funds to care for her late father and over-billed for meals. In a statement, police announced the end of their investigation but offered few details. A spokesman for the prime minister denied the accusations. …. Sara Netanyahu in particular has been accused of using government funds to support her expensive tastes and alleged abusive behavior toward staff. As far back as 2000, police suspected the couple of conspiring with a government contractor in a kickback scheme, illegally keeping gifts, and obstructing justice. In February, a former employee won a court case against her alleging he was subjected to abusive language and insults.”


I don’t like Netanyahu, and his wife’s apparently no prize either. I wonder if anything is going to come of this case, though, because for some 15 years they as a couple have been accused of financial dishonesty. Netanyahu looks and acts arrogant, and I really disapprove of his interactions with the Palestinians. Rather than moving toward a peaceful solution for the area, he has purposely and actively moved against it. A majority of the Israelis apparently approve of him, though, so I don’t expect anything to happen to them now either.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-strange-ballot-rules-hurt-bernie-sanders-chances-in-california/

Could strange ballot rules hurt Bernie Sanders' chances in California?
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS
June 3, 2016, 6:00 AM


SAN FRANCISCO Next Tuesday here in California, 2.2 million people registered as "Decline to State" or nonpartisan voters will be eligible to cast a vote in the heated Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

But because of the state's somewhat confusing rules for balloting, many of them will turn in ballots without actually casting a vote for either presidential candidate in the process--a quirk of the system that could end up costing Sanders votes he desperately needs to help him close the gap with Clinton.

Under California's election rules, nonpartisan voters can cast a ballot in the Democratic primary, but they must specifically request a Democratic ballot in order to receive one in the mail with Sanders' and Clinton's names on it. Those who didn't either request a Democratic ballot by Tuesday, May 31, or show up to vote in person on primary day and request a Democratic ballot there, are limited to voting in local races.

What's more, once someone has turned in a ballot--even if they later realize it was the wrong one and didn't include presidential races--they can't fill out another one.

"Any of those Sanders supporters who are perhaps among those independent, non-partisan voters ... may be very unpleasantly surprised when they get their ballot," said Brian Brokaw, a Democratic consultant in California.

Public polling finds a margin-of-error race between Clinton and Sanders in the week before primary day in California: a Field Poll released Thursday put Clinton's lead at just 2 points, 45 percent to 43 percent. The results from a Wednesday NBC/WSJ/Marist poll were similar, with Clinton at 49 percent and Sanders at 47 percent.

Though Clinton is likely to mathematically clinch the nomination next Tuesday night, a come-from-behind win in California would be a big symbolic victory for Sanders that could give his campaign the data point it needs to justify staying in the race until the Democratic convention this July.

And for Sanders, the longtime independent Vermont senator whose electoral success has hinged in part on strong support from independent voters, California's ballot rules could deprive him of a swath of voters just when he needs strong numbers the most.

Absentee ballot data thus far shows that this is a legitimate issue: as of Thursday, just over 322,000 nonpartisan voters had turned in ballots for next Tuesday's primary, according to data from the California-based voter analytics firm Political Data Inc. Of those, though, just 125,000 cast their votes in the presidential primary--leaving just shy of 200,000 nonpartisan voters who sat out the presidential race entirely when returning their ballots.

Early exit polling conducted by Capitol Weekly found that 40 percent of nonpartisans who've already cast a primary ballot wanted to vote in the presidential primary, which would mean that almost 100,000 people who wanted to vote for either Clinton or Sanders didn't have the option. And asked about the issue in the exit poll, 60 percent of nonpartisan voters either thought they'd automatically receive a Democratic ballot or didn't understand the process.

"This is the mind-boggling, biggest story," said Michael Trujillo, a Democratic consultant who served as Clinton's field director in 2008. "If Bernie Sanders comes up short, you can literally count the number of ballots from people who wanted to vote for him but just didn't take the extra step."

Sanders pollster Ben Tulchin, who is based in California, said the ballot issues are "frustrating" but that they're not going to be what makes or breaks Sanders' chances at victory in California.

"Look, it's a challenge, but we've faced far larger obstacles in this campaign with voter access, crazy caucus rules--you name it," he said. "So I would say it's a bump in the road but the good news is, we had a lot of people who re-registered from Decline to State to Democrats."

In order to get ahead of the potential ballot issues, Tulchin added that the campaign encouraged many of its supporters to switch their party registration over to Democrat to ensure they received the right ballot initially. And Tulchin pointed to the 1.5 million new registered voters in the state this year, including large numbers of 18- to 29-year-olds, saying Sanders can find the supporters he needs among those groups.

Though Sanders' campaign thinks it can make up the numbers elsewhere in the California electorate, the issue is clearly on the mind of his allies: a group of them filed a lawsuit pushing the state to extend the registration deadline until primary day because of the confusing rules.

A federal judge ruled against the suit in a hearing Wednesday, saying California voters are "smart enough to know what their rights are."

Paul Mitchell, vice president of PDI, said it's unlikely that the ballot rules will be the single factor that swings the election in Clinton's favor, but it could impact the overall delegate counts for both candidates.

"It's not a winner-take-all state, so it's not like 10,000 or 20,000 votes is going to mean all the delegates in California," he said. "But we could find that certain congressional districts, a delegate here or a delegate there, could be impacted by this."

Mitchell said much of the confusion results from the fact that California has switched to a nonpartisan primary process in which candidates from all parties are on one ballot and the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election. That system is in place for all races besides the presidential level, so this confusion now only arises once every four years.

Ultimately, the biggest takeaway from California's ballot issues is that the process needs to be changed next time around, Mitchell added.

"This is a black eye on our process," he said. "My real fear is ... that there are going to be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of voters who feel that they had a right to participate but something in the process failed them."



“Under California's election rules, nonpartisan voters can cast a ballot in the Democratic primary, but they must specifically request a Democratic ballot in order to receive one in the mail with Sanders' and Clinton's names on it. Those who didn't either request a Democratic ballot by Tuesday, May 31, or show up to vote in person on primary day and request a Democratic ballot there, are limited to voting in local races.” …. "Look, it's a challenge, but we've faced far larger obstacles in this campaign with voter access, crazy caucus rules--you name it," he said. "So I would say it's a bump in the road but the good news is, we had a lot of people who re-registered from Decline to State to Democrats." …. . And Tulchin pointed to the 1.5 million new registered voters in the state this year, including large numbers of 18- to 29-year-olds, saying Sanders can find the supporters he needs among those groups. …. Paul Mitchell, vice president of PDI, said it's unlikely that the ballot rules will be the single factor that swings the election in Clinton's favor, but it could impact the overall delegate counts for both candidates. …. Mitchell said much of the confusion results from the fact that California has switched to a nonpartisan primary process in which candidates from all parties are on one ballot and the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election.”


"My real fear is ... that there are going to be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of voters who feel that they had a right to participate but something in the process failed them." Hundreds of thousands of voters is not a minor matter. It’s too bad that the judge decided against the Sanders voters, perhaps on political grounds. His comment that the voters are “smart enough” to know what to do has been disproven: “60 percent of nonpartisan voters either thought they'd automatically receive a Democratic ballot or didn't understand the process …”

In an earlier article a week or so ago about the lawsuit, the writer said that instructions which were confusing had been sent out to voters, and apparently it has caused harm already. When the whole registered population of the US gets together to vote, it’s probably inevitable that there will be confusions, but I do think the judge should have allowed the changes given the fact that the ballot changes were so new.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/airbnb-racism-jane-north-carolina-host-banned-for-life/

Airbnb bans N.C. host for life after racial slur is used against guest
CBS NEWS
June 3, 2016, 7:05 AM

Photograph -- ctm0603airbnbracism.jpg, The messages were published on a blog by one of Jane's friends. Warner repeatedly cursed and used racist language despite Jane telling him to stop.
Watch CBS video, “A House Divided”


Airbnb is investigating claims of racism by some of its users. The latest incident involves a Northwestern University student identified only as "Jane" who needed a temporary place to stay in Charlotte, reports CBS News correspondent Vladimir Duthiers. She received messages, apparently from the North Carolina Airbnb host, that were so offensive, the on-demand home rental giant decided to ban him for life.

Proclaiming "This is the south darling [sic]," a user identifying himself as Todd Warner allegedly wrote: "find another place to rest your n***** head."


"I was absolutely appalled. It was just outrageous," Airbnb global head of policy Chris Lehane said.

Airbnb tells the more than 80 million people who have used its service they "belong anywhere."

"It's why we took immediate action and why we have a zero tolerance policy on any type of activity like this," Lehane said.

"It makes me feel terrible. But I think it's part of the microaggressions and just being a black American," said Chicago resident Quirtina Crittenden, who said she's experienced racial bias on Airbnb. She started the hashtag #airbnbwhileblack.

"It took me about seven to eight times when I was using Airbnb, and each time I would get like a random excuse from the host, like, 'Oh, it's booked.' 'I decided to stay in my place this week,'" Crittenden said.

"You got suspicious. Then what'd you do?" Duthiers asked.

"That's when I changed my profile. I changed my photo ... to a cityscape in Chicago. Then, I shortened my name from Quirtina to just Tina. And then after that, I never had any issues," Crittenden said.

A Harvard Business School study confirmed what Crittenden suspected. Airbnb guests with distinctively African-American names were about 16 percent less likely to be accepted than those with white names.

"The extent of discrimination is pretty persistent. So it holds whether there's an African American host, or a white host," Harvard Business School assistant professor Michael Luca said.

Airbnb's opponents and competitors have even seized on the issue, releasing a commercial last month.

"I am a black woman. I get declined all the time on Airbnb," a woman said on the commercial.

The company says it has begun offering training to employees and hosts. Laura Murphy, a former top ACLU official, will conduct a comprehensive review to make sure guests and hosts are being treated fairly.

"A really, really big challenge that everyone in society is dealing with, but we want to do our part," Lehane said.

"Do you still want to use Airbnb or has it turned you off?" Duthiers asked Crittenden.

"I have no problem with Airbnb as a company, as a service. But I do think they need to put a little action behind their words," she said.

Airbnb hopes to complete the review by September.

CBS News reached out to "Jane," the user in North Carolina, but did not get a response. We also tried to contact the host, Todd Warner, but were unsuccessful.



"I was absolutely appalled. It was just outrageous," Airbnb global head of policy Chris Lehane said. Airbnb tells the more than 80 million people who have used its service they "belong anywhere." "It's why we took immediate action and why we have a zero tolerance policy on any type of activity like this," Lehane said. "It makes me feel terrible. But I think it's part of the microaggressions and just being a black American," said Chicago resident Quirtina Crittenden, who said she's experienced racial bias on Airbnb. She started the hashtag #airbnbwhileblack.” …. The company says it has begun offering training to employees and hosts. Laura Murphy, a former top ACLU official, will conduct a comprehensive review to make sure guests and hosts are being treated fairly. "A really, really big challenge that everyone in society is dealing with, but we want to do our part," Lehane said.”


It would be easy to assume that all whites in NC and many other places are racist, verbally hateful, would deny services on the basis of race, have even committed assaults and murders of black people, and hate all liberal ideas as “sinful,” but it really isn’t true. The so-called “conservative” people, in other words, having a negative closed mind and heart, are located all over the country, including Northern cities.

Individuals form their society and society forms the individuals within it to an overwhelming degree. Still, we can change by making a conscious effort. What we learn while young tends to stick with us forever, but it isn't totally immutable. Most people don’t do much introspective thinking or “book larnin’” either, and as a result remain literally tainted with such ideas. The old slavery/Jim Crow tradition has never died out here. Those “conservative” people of the 1950s and ‘60s were forced to integrate everything from schools to water fountains, but they have hated it and resented the US government as a result. Being beaten in the Civil War has made their hatred deeper, not less. From this cesspool have risen the Militias, KKK, Neo-Nazism, and their like fellows.

There are still, to this day, occasional calls for secession in isolated pockets of the country, especially the West. The Midwest and parts of the North also have pockets of maltreatment of minority groups of all kinds, so we aren’t the only ones. I blame things like an unfortunate lack of higher education among many to most Americans, black and white, and the fact that very little social integration exists still. Allowing black people to sit down in restaurants isn’t enough. Most blacks and whites still know very few members of other races personally and on a friendship basis, and tend in fact to think of them as being almost another species.

The Christian religion should go deeply enough inside people to change the way they react and think, but by and large it doesn’t. There are actually still a few churches that preach against Civil Rights and integration from the pulpit. I blame the Evangelical trend and the (pardon me, Christians), irrational “faith only” thinking pattern among us. That’s supposed to make us better people through an enlivening of our soul, but it is making many of us worse, especially since Christianity is getting its’ claws so deeply into politics and what is taught in school. The anti-evolution and anti-social fairness doctrines are even appearing in textbooks. The latest case of that was in Texas, like so many radical rightist trends.

There are Jews who speak badly of blacks, too, but they tend to be more liberal in general than Christians, and were involved in large numbers in the Civil Rights activities, Southern Poverty Law Center and ACLU. All of the Jewish people I’ve known are liberals. One of the most affecting things that Jesus said is that mankind is “sick with sin.” That is so true. I’m glad to see that AIRBNB is prohibiting that kind of thing among their homeowners since this scandalous event occurred. It seems that fairness has to be mandated from the top down, though, which is really unfortunate.



http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/06/01/480268469/digging-up-the-roots-of-modern-waste-in-victorian-era-rubbish

Digging Up The Roots Of Modern Waste In Victorian-Era Rubbish
LAUREN FRAYER
June 1, 2016 2:48 PM ET

Photograph -- A Dundee marmalade jar (left) is among items recently unearthed from a 19th century landfill behind a manor house in East Anglia. In Victorian England, people transitioned from making most things at home to buying them in stores. Rich Preston/NPR
Photograph -- London's Museum of Brands, Packaging & Advertising includes some 12,000 items, including these miscellaneous 19th century containers. Courtesy of the Museum of Brands, Packaging & Advertising
Photograph -- Tom Licence examines Victorian-era garbage behind a manor house in East Anglia, England. Lauren Frayer for NPR


Tom Licence has a Ph.D., and he's a garbage man.

When you think of archaeology, you might think of Roman ruins, ancient Egypt or Indiana Jones. But Licence works in the field of "garbology." While some may dig deep down to get to the good stuff — ancient tombs, residences, bones — Licence looks at the top layers, which, where he lives in England, are filled with Victorian-era garbage.

Studying what people threw away 150 years ago, Licence is getting to the bottom of an important issue: how much we throw away, and how to change that.

"We dig up rubbish," says Licence, who is the director of the Centre of East Anglian Studies at the University of East Anglia. (His Ph.D. is in history). "We're interested in what people threw away and how we became a throwaway society."

Nowadays, we're surrounded by so much packaging, you might think it's always been there. But 200 years ago, Licence says, the average household in Western society produced almost no garbage as we understand it today. Trash in the pre-industrial era often consisted of broken ceramics, shells, animal bones and other items that couldn't be reused. Licence is investigating the era when all of that changed, during the reign of Queen Victoria, from 1837 until 1901.

Victoria happened to be in charge of the British Empire during a key transition: when people gradually went from making everything they needed at home to buying things at stores, in packages. It came with prosperity and the industrial revolution.

Evidence of that transition is what Licence was digging for when NPR caught up with him recently in the backyard of a manor house in East Anglia, north of London. In an enormous sand pit behind the house, he was examining trash from 1870 to 1910 — ceramic pots, tiny glass medicine bottles and even champagne bottles imported from France by the wealthy rector who lived there back then.

"In London and large cities, they had organized waste collection — an ash or dust cart, as they were called," Licence explains. "But in rural areas, they don't get [waste collection] until the 1950s. It was expensive to send a cart around isolated houses, and residents would much rather dig a hole in the corner of their property and dump it instead."

Local volunteers join in, unearthing broken window panes and marmalade jars.

"A lot of this stuff is things that our grandparents would have been very familiar with," says Derek Clark, a retiree lending a hand on the dig to learn more about the history of his neighborhood. "So, you know, it becomes real."

In the landfill, the food waste has long disintegrated. What's left is Victorian-era packaging.

"What we find in the 1880s and 1890s is that more and more packaged products are coming onto the market," Licence explains to his volunteers. "People have got more money in their pockets to spend, and rather than making things at home, they're buying it in small containers, bottles and tins, and those things really can't be reused, they can't be kept."

With more and more disposable, packaged goods, the average household's volume of garbage skyrocketed.

Packaging has become so important in our lives that it even has its own museum — the Museum of Brands, Packaging & Advertising, in London's Notting Hill. Its chronological exhibits begin with the Victorian era.

In Victorian times, "We [began to] see this growing range of packaged products," says the museum's founder and director, Robert Opie. "As a society, we wanted more and more convenience. We wanted things to be faster, quicker, cheaper, better."

Packaging meant manufacturers could take control of their products and advertise them. Previously, grocers would sell things like soap, salt or cookies loose, then wrap them up in plain paper and price them according to weight.

But during the Victoria era, people were starting to learn about germs and food safety. Hygiene became an obsession. Consumers could find products in packages that they trusted. It was the start of brand loyalty.

"Especially with food products, there was a great deal of concern because not only was the grocer able to add spurious ingredients to add to the weight [of a product], but everybody was concerned about their health," Opie explains. "So the solution was for manufacturers like Cadbury's, for example, to actually provide the product pre-wrapped, pre-weighed and therefore untouched by anyone else's hand. That was a fundamental change."

Opie's museum, which opened 32 years ago, began as a personal collection and recently moved into a bigger space to accommodate growing interest. People are fascinated by the brands and packaging of products their grandparents used, Opie says.

"This isn't 'retro,' though. This is the real stuff!" Opie says, surveying his collection of more than 12,000 items. "These are the originals."

Every day, more originals are being dug up as residents unearth the garbage their predecessors began burying in their backyards 150 years ago.

Licence has written a book called What the Victorians Threw Away, and his accompanying website includes a database of objects found in Victorian garbage dumps. People around the world can log on and compare notes on what they've found buried on their own property.

The reach of U.K.-made products from the Victorian era was vast — ending up across the British Empire and beyond.

"We had a chap from California who found some bottles in a pit that had been dug by gold pioneers in the 1850s, and recently someone's been in touch from India, too," Licence says. "One of the most interesting was an archaeologist in Brazil who's excavating a patch of land before they build the new Olympic stadium, and he's found packaging from 19th century products imported all the way from England. It's the origin of the carbon footprint, really."

Licence hopes his work can show people that humans are not hard-wired to create so much garbage. Waste is a relatively recent phenomenon, he says.

"Naturally, I think people want to conserve and reuse things — and that was pretty much what happened all through time, until about 1900, when we became a throwaway society, largely because we got swamped with all this packaging."

By digging it up, he hopes to convince us that our habits can be reversed.



“Studying what people threw away 150 years ago, Licence is getting to the bottom of an important issue: how much we throw away, and how to change that. "We dig up rubbish," says Licence, who is the director of the Centre of East Anglian Studies at the University of East Anglia. (His Ph.D. is in history). "We're interested in what people threw away and how we became a throwaway society." …. Trash in the pre-industrial era often consisted of broken ceramics, shells, animal bones and other items that couldn't be reused. Licence is investigating the era when all of that changed, during the reign of Queen Victoria, from 1837 until 1901. …. It came with prosperity and the industrial revolution. Evidence of that transition is what Licence was digging for when NPR caught up with him recently in the backyard of a manor house in East Anglia, north of London. In an enormous sand pit behind the house, he was examining trash from 1870 to 1910 — ceramic pots, tiny glass medicine bottles and even champagne bottles imported from France by the wealthy rector who lived there back then. "In London and large cities, they had organized waste collection — an ash or dust cart, as they were called," Licence explains. "But in rural areas, they don't get [waste collection] until the 1950s. It was expensive to send a cart around isolated houses, and residents would much rather dig a hole in the corner of their property and dump it instead." …. With more and more disposable, packaged goods, the average household's volume of garbage skyrocketed. Packaging has become so important in our lives that it even has its own museum — the Museum of Brands, Packaging & Advertising, in London's Notting Hill. Its chronological exhibits begin with the Victorian era. …. But during the Victoria era, people were starting to learn about germs and food safety. Hygiene became an obsession. Consumers could find products in packages that they trusted. It was the start of brand loyalty. …. Licence hopes his work can show people that humans are not hard-wired to create so much garbage. Waste is a relatively recent phenomenon, he says. "Naturally, I think people want to conserve and reuse things — and that was pretty much what happened all through time, until about 1900, when we became a throwaway society, largely because we got swamped with all this packaging."


I’ve heard of “garbology” before. Archaeologists have invented a word for prehistoric garbage piles – “kitchen middens.” They have bones, shells, etc. in them. It’s one of the most fertile sources of artifacts and other information on how the people lived.

I’ve always been a fool for old things, especially if they have been used by humans – Native American artifacts, household objects, buildings, books, photographs, and on and on. It is a tangible connection down through time from generation to generation and from place to place, and when I touch them I feel a little buzz of energy go through me. Channeling, maybe? I would love to see this museum, though I never will now. There is a similar one, though very small, in NC of some amazing and unexpected things. Perhaps the most interesting to me was a brooch made by winding a woman’s hair over and over around an ornamental form. In a way it was charming, and in another way a little creepy, but it did tell me something about how folks in those days amused themselves and created beauty.

The rural sections of North Carolina have been settled by white farmers for about 300 years, by American Indians since some 13,000 BP, and in the UK (see below) it’s more like 950,000 years ago. My father dug up a heavy grindstone in his garden in Eastern NC. We took it to an archaeologist on the UNC campus in Chapel Hill, who estimated its’ age at 6,000 years. I still have that, along with a large seven or eight pound clear crystal of quartz which I found in my brother in law’s rock wall. He said that he thought it was a manmade object, and didn't mind that I wanted to keep it.

See the great article below on the earliest discovered human artifacts in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/07/first-humans-britain-stone-tools, First humans arrived in Britain 250,000 years earlier than thought. . . . . Ian Sample, science correspondent, @iansample, Wednesday 7 July 2010 13.04 EDT. Excerpt below:

“A spectacular haul of ancient flint tools has been recovered from a beach in Norfolk, pushing back the date of the first known human occupation of Britain by up to 250,000 years. While digging along the north-east coast of East Anglia near the village of Happisburgh, archaeologists discovered 78 pieces of razor-sharp flint shaped into primitive cutting and piercing tools.

The stone tools were unearthed from sediments that are thought to have been laid down either 840,000 or 950,000 years ago, making them the oldest human artefacts ever found in Britain.

The flints were probably left by hunter-gatherers of the human species Homo antecessor who eked out a living on the flood plains and marshes that bordered an ancient course of the river Thames that has long since dried up. The flints were then washed downriver and came to rest at the Happisburgh site.

The early Britons would have lived alongside sabre-toothed cats and hyenas, primitive horses, red deer and southern mammoths in a climate similar to that of southern Britain today, though winters were typically a few degrees colder.”

"These tools from Happisburgh are absolutely mint-fresh. They are exceptionally sharp, which suggests they have not moved far from where they were dropped," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. The population of Britain at the time most likely numbered in the hundreds or a few thousand at most.

"These people probably used the rivers as routes into the landscape. A lot of Britain might have been heavily forested at the time, which would have posed a major problem for humans without strong axes to chop trees down," Stringer added. "They lived out in the open, but we don't know if they had basic clothing, were building primitive shelters, or even had the use of fire."

The discovery, reported in the journal Nature, overturns the long-held belief that early humans steered clear of chilly Britain – and the rest of northern Europe – in favour of the more hospitable climate of the Mediterranean. The only human species known to be living in Europe at the time is Homo antecessor, or "pioneer man", whose remains were discovered in the Atapuerca hills of Spain in 2008 and have been dated to between 1.1m and 1.2m years old. . . . .



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-hikes-on-the-wealthy-good-or-bad-for-growth/

Tax hikes on the wealthy: Good or bad for growth?
By MARK THOMA MONEYWATCH
June 1, 2016, 5:30 AM

Conservatives have argued for decades that tax cuts are the key to economic prosperity. And the tax plan presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is pushing would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners by an average of approximately $1.3 million per year, embracing that conservative point of view.

On the other hand, Democrats such as front-runner Hillary Clinton take another approach. Clinton says she'll reform the U.S. tax code so that the wealthiest pay their fair share. The response from Republicans has been predictable: They argue that such a tax plan will lower growth and harm the economy.

Do the conservative arguments against tax increases have any merit? Or are they, as Democrats claim, a way to serve an ideological goal of smaller government and reward wealthy Republican donors? Let's take a closer look.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy will harm economic growth: This argument is made frequently, along with the claim that increasing growth will lift all boats, but the evidence doesn't support either claim. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and John Bates Clark medalist Emmanuel Saez have noted, since the 1970s no clear correlation exists between economic growth and top tax-rate cuts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

As for the trickle-down argument, this claim falls apart when you examine what happened to the distribution of income after tax cuts for the wealthy enacted during the Bush administration. Income of those at the top went up substantially, with no corresponding gain for those lower in the income distribution.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't solve the income inequality problem: Higher taxes for the highest earners may not solve the problem, but it would help. Again, consider the tax cuts on the wealthy enacted during the Bush years. In addition to not generating a positive trickle-down economic growth effect, those cuts contributed to the stunning increase in income inequality in recent decades. Raising taxes would have the opposite effect.

Tax increases will blunt the incentive to invest in new businesses: Decreasing taxes did not increase economic growth, so why would increasing taxes to levels they've been at in the past be harmful? In addition, it's hard to believe that a reduction in expected aftertax income of, say, 10 percent from $10 million to $9 million, or even from $300,000 to $270,000, would cause someone to pass on the investment opportunity.

The wealthy will move to other countries to avoid the tax increase: A recent study examined the propensity of the rich to move between U.S. states in response to state tax increases. The lead author of the study, Cristobal Young of Stanford University, summarized the results by saying, "The most striking finding in our study is how little elites seem willing to move to exploit tax advantages across state lines."

If the wealthy aren't willing to move between states in response to tax differences, it seems even more unlikely that would undertake the far more difficult task of moving to another country.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't increase tax revenue: The Laffer curve argument that increasing taxes will cause the wealthy to pursue tax-avoidance strategies or forego profitable opportunities to the extent that tax revenues actually fall has been examined again and again, and the message is clear. Tax avoidance may increase somewhat, but nowhere near enough to cause tax revenues to fall.

Diamond and Saez have looked at this closely, and they found that the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50 percent to 70 percent (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes).

Less will be donated to private charities: Would tax increases cause the wealthy to reduce their charitable giving? Research on this question suggests it's the other way around. Back in the 1970s, when the top rate of federal income tax was 70 percent, wealthier Americans (those with incomes of over $500,000 in 2007 dollars) gave around twice as much of their money to charity than they did in 2007, when the top rate had fallen to 35 percent.

Why does this happen? When taxes are higher, the benefit of the tax deduction for charitable giving is also higher, so people tend to increase the amount they give. In addition, the wealthy give their biggest donations almost exclusively to universities and colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and arts institutions. They rarely make large gifts to social-service groups, grass-roots organizations or nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities.

So to the extent that the increased tax revenue is used to support these groups, social welfare could benefit.

The wealthy deserve what they earn: This argument assumes that they're paid according to their contribution to society. But in a world of monopoly power, regulatory capture and asymmetric power relationships in bargaining over the wage and profit shares of business earnings, the presumption that those at the top of the income distribution earned their income flies out the window.

If we assume that fairness is defined as keeping what you contribute to the social good (what economists would call the value of their marginal product), and no more than that, such fairness would compel us to take the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution to the social good.

Where should that income go? Substantial evidence shows that wage earners have earned less than their marginal products in recent decades. So under the principle that people should have an income equal to what they contribute, fairness would suggest that we redistribute to underpaid wage earners some of the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution, either through direct payments, tax adjustments or spending on social programs that benefit lower-income households.

It's a tax on small businesses: The number of small-business owners that would be affected by a tax increase on incomes over $250,000 is fairly small. For example, an analysis of President Obama's proposal in 2009 to increase the rates for those in the top two tax brackets would affect only 1.9 percent of small businesses.

Many of those who would be affected are investors in the businesses who play no role at all in day-to-day management. And they could always escape the tax completely by filing as corporations. You also have to wonder how many people would choose to give up their businesses if their incomes were only, say, $350,000 due to a tax increase.

Arguments about the size of government and the taxes needed to support the many things that government does are certainly fair game for politicians. But the argument that tax increases on the wealthy will cause substantial harm to the economy does not withstand a close look at the evidence.



“As Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and John Bates Clark medalist Emmanuel Saez have noted, since the 1970s no clear correlation exists between economic growth and top tax-rate cuts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. …. Income of those at the top went up substantially, with no corresponding gain for those lower in the income distribution. …. In addition to not generating a positive trickle-down economic growth effect, those cuts contributed to the stunning increase in income inequality in recent decades. Raising taxes would have the opposite effect. …. If the wealthy aren't willing to move between states in response to tax differences, it seems even more unlikely that would undertake the far more difficult task of moving to another country. …. Tax avoidance may increase somewhat, but nowhere near enough to cause tax revenues to fall. …. wealthier Americans (those with incomes of over $500,000 in 2007 dollars) gave around twice as much of their money to charity than they did in 2007, when the top rate had fallen to 35 percent. …. If we assume that fairness is defined as keeping what you contribute to the social good (what economists would call the value of their marginal product), and no more than that, such fairness would compel us to take the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution to the social good. Where should that income go? Substantial evidence shows that wage earners have earned less than their marginal products in recent decades. So under the principle that people should have an income equal to what they contribute, fairness would suggest that we redistribute to underpaid wage earners some of the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution, either through direct payments, tax adjustments or spending on social programs that benefit lower-income households. …. The number of small-business owners that would be affected by a tax increase on incomes over $250,000 is fairly small.”


“They rarely make large gifts to social-service groups, grass-roots organizations or nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities. So to the extent that the increased tax revenue is used to support these groups, social welfare could benefit.” This article is damning to the “greed is good” theory that has been challenged so well here. This is a great article for summing the typical Supply Side claims by modern economists and then demolishing them.

In addition, Thoma does back up his conclusions with real information. In the one general Economics course I took, the book had many of those graphs and charts like the Laffer Curve, and they were all created to generate a plausible-looking “proof” of the theory at hand. Never were there any studies or facts which would indicate something from the real world that I could either analyze or simply believe. In other words, whatever actual data was involved was barely discussed. I asked the professor about that and he said that that kind of study is not called Economics, but “Econometrics,” and wasn’t covered in the text. The conclusion I came to is that many or most Economists are full of hot air, and are a part of our “rigged” – to use Sanders’ word – economic system. They say what the wealthy want them to say.

Even if all of Bernie Sanders’ goals do not, cannot come to pass, the wealthy would barely feel it if their immense cash reserves were lessened. Billions of dollars should be enough to share and still get by financially. Unlike the poor, they wouldn’t have to do without anything that is necessary to their lives if their tax perks were taken away so that more of their billions would trickle down to the real world below. The statement above that, given their way, the wealthy would NOT try to help the poor at a rate higher than 35%, but would rather buy more yachts and furs and jewels (and cocaine and call girls and political candidates) with their money, just goes to show that the more money we have the more we want!

I can’t agree that greed is good. It’s “the root of all evil.” See the interesting and enlightening discussion of the word “fairness” above. It doesn’t say that people who make much, much more than all of the others combined, shouldn’t have to share it with us, but that they should. Not only is that a progressive and in my view “good,” viewpoint, it is the only way we will survive in the future as machines proliferate and good jobs move to Bombay.



http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/2000-year-handwritten-documents-found-london-mud-39527610

2,000-Year-Old Handwritten Documents Found in London Mud
By JILL LAWLESS, ASSOCIATED PRESS
LONDON — Jun 1, 2016, 10:47 AM ET

They came, they saw, they got down to business.

Archaeologists announced Wednesday they have discovered hundreds of writing tablets from Roman London — including the oldest handwritten document ever found in Britain — in a trove that provides insight into the city's earliest history as a busy commercial town.

Researchers from Museum of London Archaeology uncovered more than 400 wooden tablets during excavations in London's financial district for the new headquarters of media and data company Bloomberg.

So far, 87 have been deciphered, including one addressed "in London, to Mogontius" and dated to A.D. 65-80 — the earliest written reference to the city, which the Romans called Londinium.

Sophie Jackson, an archaeologist working on the site, said the find was "hugely significant."

"It's the first generation of Londoners speaking to us," she said.

The Romans founded London after their invasion of Britain in A.D. 43. The settlement was destroyed in a Celtic rebellion led by Queen Boudica in A.D. 61, but quickly rebuilt.

The documents show that only a few years after it was established, London was already a thriving town of merchants and traders. The records include references to beer deliveries, food orders and legal rulings.

One tablet carries the date Jan. 8, A.D. 57, making it Britain's earliest dated hand-written document. Fittingly for a city that is now the world's commercial capital, it's about money — an ancient IOU in which one freed slave promises to repay another "105 denarii from the price of the merchandise which has been sold and delivered."

The wooden tablets were preserved in the wet mud of the Walbrook — then a river, now a buried stream.

"The water keeps out the oxygen that would normally cause decay," Jackson said. "Our sticky Walbrook mud is like the ash of Pompeii or the lava of Herculaneum" — Roman towns in Italy preserved by volcanic eruptions.

In Roman times, the tablets were covered in wax, on which words could be inscribed with a stylus. The wax has not survived, but some of the writing penetrated to the wood and can still be read.

Classicist Roger Tomlin, who deciphered the inscriptions, said looking at the ancient handwriting had been "fun."

"You're thinking your way into the hand of someone else who lived 1,900 years ago," he said. "Your eyes are setting foot where man has never been before, at least not for a very long time."

Associated Press writer James Brooks contributed to this report.



"It's the first generation of Londoners speaking to us," she said. The Romans founded London after their invasion of Britain in A.D. 43. The settlement was destroyed in a Celtic rebellion led by Queen Boudica in A.D. 61, but quickly rebuilt. The documents show that only a few years after it was established, London was already a thriving town of merchants and traders. The records include references to beer deliveries, food orders and legal rulings. … "The water keeps out the oxygen that would normally cause decay," Jackson said. "Our sticky Walbrook mud is like the ash of Pompeii or the lava of Herculaneum" — Roman towns in Italy preserved by volcanic eruptions. In Roman times, the tablets were covered in wax, on which words could be inscribed with a stylus. The wax has not survived, but some of the writing penetrated to the wood and can still be read. Classicist Roger Tomlin, who deciphered the inscriptions, said looking at the ancient handwriting had been "fun." "You're thinking your way into the hand of someone else who lived 1,900 years ago," he said. "Your eyes are setting foot where man has never been before, at least not for a very long time."


A few years ago I read an account of such tangible proof of how the Romans lived in Britain. One tablet was an invitation to dinner from one Roman woman to another, and another was a request to the soldier’s mother to send him his “woolies” because it was cold in England! Things like that will never make it into the history books, but they're fascinating and important, nonetheless.