May 4, 2017


News and Views


NOT GOOD !!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-threatens-china-grave-consequences-nuclear-standoff/
AP May 4, 2017, 10:26 AM
For 1st time, North Korea directly threatens vital ally China

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea has issued a rare direct criticism of China through a commentary saying its "reckless remarks" on the North's nuclear program are testing its patience and could trigger unspecified "grave" consequences.

China, North Korea's largest trading partner and main benefactor, suspended imports of North Korean coal in line with U.N. sanctions earlier this year and has recently been urging its traditional ally to stop nuclear and missile activities amid U.S. pressure to use its leverage to resolve the nuclear standoff. Chinese state media have also unleashed regular and harsh criticisms on North Korea.

The commentary released Wednesday by the state-run Korean Central News Agency said that "a string of absurd and reckless remarks are now heard from China every day only to render the present bad situation tenser."

Why U.S. THAAD anti-missile system in S. Korea is controversial
North Korea confirms detention of U.S. professor
N. Korea vows to "speed up" nuclear program as THAAD goes operational

Asked about the KCNA commentary during a regular briefing Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Beijing's position on "developing good neighborly and friendly cooperation with North Korea is also consistent and clear."

Trump's willingness to meet with Kim Jong Un sparks backlash
Play VIDEO
Trump's willingness to meet with Kim Jong Un sparks backlash

The North Korean article cited recent commentaries by Chinese state media that it said shifted the blame for deteriorating bilateral relations onto the North and raised "lame excuses for the base acts of dancing to the tune of the U.S."

"China should no longer try to test the limits of the DPRK's patience," the North Korean commentary said, using the acronym for its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "China had better ponder over the grave consequences to be entailed by its reckless act of chopping down the pillar of the DPRK-China relations."

The article was not attributed to any government agency or official; the writer was identified only as Kim Chol. Still, it's unusual for the North to directly criticize China. Previously it has couched such criticism by referring to China only as "a neighboring country."

north-korea-soldiers.jpg
North Korean soldiers gesture at the Yalu River in Sinuiju, North Korea, which borders Dandong in China's Liaoning province, April 15, 2017. REUTERS

Analyst Cheong Seong-chang at South Korea's private Sejong Institute said the North's discontent at China appears to be on the "verge of exploding." He said North Korea will likely ignore China from now on while trying to strengthen ties with Russia and improve relations with a new South Korean government to be inaugurated next week.

The Global Times, an outspoken nationalist tabloid published by China's ruling Communist Party's flagship People's Daily, warned in a Thursday editorial that the North's actions threatened a 1961 treaty of non-aggression between the two countries. It called on the North to end its nuclear tests.

"China will not allow its northeastern region to be contaminated by North Korea's nuclear activities," the Global Times declared.

Kim Jong Un's North Korea military spectacle

In recent days, the paper also warned that China was able to strike back "at any side that crosses the red line" and would impose an oil embargo against the North in response to any more tests. The North Korean commentary said it's China that crossed "the red line."

The People's Daily declared Sunday - and again on Tuesday - that the North's nuclear ambitions "put itself and the whole region into dire peril."



I DON’T KNOW WHICH PART OF THIS STORY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TO ME, THE DISCOVERY OF (PRESUMABLY TRUE) COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OR THE BRILLIANT IDEA OF A SHELTER FOR ELDERLY DOGS. SEEING A DECREPIT ANIMAL DOES “TUG AT MY HEART STRINGS,” BECAUSE THEY SO PATIENTLY ACCEPT THEIR FATES, AND SOMETIMES IT IS A TERRIBLY CRUEL FATE. BLESS HER KIND SOUL!

http://www.wifr.com/content/news/Rockton-woman-selling-handwritten-copy-of-declaration-of-independence-to-open-senior-dog-shelter-421067714.html
Rockton woman wants to sell priceless copy of the Declaration of Independence

Copy of Declaration of Independence

Posted: Tue 4:11 PM, May 02, 2017 | Updated: Tue 5:48 PM, May 02, 2017

ROCKFORD (WIFR) -- The discovery of a copy of the Declaration of Independence may lead to more independence for old dogs.

"It was a great find," Chris Brigham said.

It’s a handwritten copy of the Declaration of Independence Chris Brigham stumbled across at an estate sale.

"It was rolled up inside this 1920's bedroom set," the Rockton woman said.

Brigham wasn't sure if it was real until she saw the reaction of a Chicago appraiser.

"She could hardly talk because she hadn't seen one in this good of condition at all and she was just speechless," she said.

Now Brigham hopes to turn her priceless piece of American history into some good for aging dogs.

"Seniors do not do well in shelters. They've lived in the comfort of your home for 10 or 12 years and now you're throwing them in a cage on a cement floor, they don't do well," Brigham explained.

She wants to use the money she makes by selling her copy of the Declaration of Independence to open a retirement home for senior pets.

"It’s comparable to an assisted living for people. There will be no cages, they'll have free run to be a pet."

Brigham says its the sweet faces of aging dogs that makes giving up the Declaration of Independence an easy choice.

"To me it's a piece of paper but it's also the dollars to do what we want to do and I would rather someone who appreciates that kind of stuff pass it onto them."

Although she's from Rockton Brigham and her husband want to move to Maine by their only daughter. They hope to open the shelter there later this year.

OSF Saint Anthony angio lab saving lives
Mayor Tom McNamara announces new city administrator



THE DIFFERENCE HERE, BETWEEN A DEMOCRATIC INSURANCE PLAN AND A REPUBLICAN ONE, IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THEIR WAR AGAINST THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS. THE IDEA OF A PER CAPITA CAP ON SPENDING BY INDIVIDUALS, NO MATTER THEIR MEDICAL NEED. THEY WANT TO PUSH ECONOMIC LIFE BACK TO THE 1920S AGAIN. I HAVE HOPE THAT THE SENATE WON’T PASS THIS.


SENATORS’ TAKE ON BILL

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-health-care-bill-gop-senators-signal-theyll-make-changes/
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS May 4, 2017, 4:46 PM
House health care bill - GOP senators signal they'll make changes

The early reaction from Senate Republicans to the House passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to repeal and replace Obamacare signaled they're likely to make changes to the House bill.

What is a pre-existing condition?

The chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee suggested that GOP senators could even pitch their own legislation to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

"I congratulate the House on passage of its bills. The Senate will now finish work on our bill, but will take the time to get it right," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, said in a statement.

Here's what's actually in the latest House GOP health care bill

The goals for the Senate bill, he said, include lowering premium costs, rescuing Americans trapped in the Obamacare exchanges, making sure those with pre-existing conditions have access to insurance and gradually giving states more flexibility with Medicaid.

House passes GOP health care bill to replace Obamacare
Play VIDEO
House passes GOP health care bill to replace Obamacare

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's, R-Kentucky, office said that the upper chamber will consider the measure once budgetary and procedural scorekeeping reviews* are completed. The House passed the latest GOP-sponsored version of the bill Thursday afternoon without a new score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Is Trump right that pre-existing conditions are covered in the GOP health care bill?
Still, McConnell praised it as "an important step."

"We are now closer to giving our constituents freedom from the increased costs, diminishing choices, and broken promises of Obamacare," he said in a statement.

He added that the status quo is "unacceptable," but McConnell's statement didn't say whether the Senate would take up the House bill. The Senate has to first review whether the House measure complies with budget reconciliation rules, which allow for a simple majority of senators to pass a bill rather than a supermajority. If the Senate crafts a different version, it will have to be reconciled with the House.

While other Senate Republicans stopped short of explicitly embracing the bill in its current form, they applauded their House counterparts for moving forward.

"I don't know what's in it," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said. "I'd be curious about the Medicaid provisions. South Carolina chose not to expand Medicaid which I thought was responsible. My test will be: is it good for the people of South Carolina? And is it good for the nation? I have no idea yet."

But Graham also criticized the House for rushing the measure to the floor.

"The bill has been out for less than 24 hours," Graham said. "No amendments. Debates for three or four hours. Any time you have a process like this that hasn't been scored you've got to be suspicious of the outcome."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said he thinks Congress needs to "reach a conclusion," but he also disapproved of the House decision to vote on the bill before a CBO score had been issued.

"I don't approve of it, but whatever they want to do. They spend their time criticizing me, but I won't," he said.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, said "it will be weeks to get a score" and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said that the Freedom Caucus made the bill "a lot less bad."

"That's the nicest thing I could think to say," Paul said. "Part of my problem with the bill is that the underlying premise of Obamacare is that the federal government for the first time would buy insurance for people. That fundamental premise of Obamacare is kept."

CBS News' Walt Cronkite contributed to this report.


SCOREKEEPING REVIEWS* -- MEANING

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/24915
Scorekeeping Rules and the Congressional Budget Process
June 9, 2009

Yesterday, I explained how CBOs cost estimates take into account behavioral responses* to proposed new federal laws, including the effects of such responses on spending for federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. In that discussion, I noted that exceptions to this practice occasionally occur because budget scorekeeping rules specify that only certain types of spending effects can be considered for Congressional budget enforcement purposes. These rules are potentially relevant for estimates of health reform proposals that aim to achieve budget savings by funding new prevention and wellness activities or by reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare or Medicaid.

Scorekeeping rules were set forth by the Congress in the conference report for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and are updated occasionally upon agreement by the full group of scorekeepers, a group that consists of the House and Senate Committees on the Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget. The purpose of these rules is to ensure consistent treatment of spending authority, appropriations, and outlays across programs and over time.

When an agency is given significant new legal authority to identify and eliminate program waste, any estimated budget savings is counted, or scored, in assessing the budgetary impact of the legislation that provides that new authority. For example, CBO would estimate savings for a provision that required Medicare to suspend payments to a provider being investigated for fraudulent activity. In other examples, the Congress has occasionally given agencies new authority to use employment data to identify and stop federal payments for individuals who are not eligible for certain benefits.

However, potential cost savings in Medicare from an increase in funding for administrative activities aimed at reducing wasteful spending (rather than new investigative or enforcement authority with the same aim) would not be included in the official score of legislation. In particular, two of the scorekeeping rules prohibit counting any changes in mandatory spending as a result of changes in the amount of mandatory funding for administration or program management, or in the amount of discretionary appropriations for any activity. (A mandatory spending program is one that does not require annual appropriations; discretionary programs are funded each year in an appropriation bill.) The guidelines were adopted in part to avoid situations where hoped-for, but quite uncertain, savings are used to offset near-term, certain spending increases or revenue decreases in the same legislation.

Thus, new prevention and wellness activities funded from discretionary appropriations may generate eventual savings in Medicare or Medicaid, but those potential savings are not credited to the appropriation action as part of the budget scorekeeping process. Similarly, if a bill would increase either discretionary or mandatory funding for activities aimed at reducing fraud or waste, those added funds are included as a cost of the bill, but any potential savings in mandatory spending are not reflected for Congressional scorekeeping purposes. For either of these examples, if the bill becomes law, then the estimated savings in mandatory spending are factored into future CBO baseline projections; and of course, any realized savings in such cases will in fact reduce budget deficits unless they are used for other purposes.


BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES* -- WELFARE QUEENS?

Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor.
B Lott - American Psychologist, 2002 - psycnet.apa.org

... view of poor women, in particular, as in “need [of] sanctions and other coercive behavioral measures to ... These behaviors include a lack of effort, ambition, thrift, talent and morals” (Beck et al ... as an individual problem and to be preoccupied “with poor people's behavior, rather than ...
Cited by 415 Related articles All 8 versions Cite Save



DISSECTION OF THE HOUSE BILL

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-the-latest-house-gop-health-care-bill/
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS May 4, 2017, 12:04 PM
What's actually in the latest House GOP health care bill?

The House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, a development that brings Republicans one step closer to fulfilling one of President Trump's campaign promises and achieving a policy goal they've sought for years.

The bill passed by a thin margin: the 217 lawmakers who voted in favor were all Republicans, and the 213 who voted against it included all 193 House Democrats and 20 Republican members. The bill now heads to the Senate, where it's expected to face significant changes.

But what's in the bill that was passed Thursday?

The plan is largely similar to the bill crafted by GOP leaders earlier this year that was pulled from the House floor in March due to insufficient support. Lawmakers made a few crucial changes, however, won support from some members who didn't back the earlier legislation.

Here's a brief rundown of what's in the House GOP health care bill, and how it could affect you.

Revamped insurance tax credits

Under Obamacare, individuals in the private health insurance market obtain a tax credit to help them afford coverage. The size of that subsidy is determined by a variety of factors, including your age, where you live, and how much money you earn. Coverage is subsidized for anyone earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, with higher-earning individuals receiving less generous subsidies.

New health bill comes to a vote in the House today
Play VIDEO
New health bill comes to a vote in the House today

The Republican plan would replace that system with a tax credit indexed mainly to a person's age – from a minimum of $2,000 annually for a young person to a maximum of $4,000 annually for someone in their 60s who can't yet access Medicare.

The tax credit would also diminish as income increases. An individual earning up to $75,000 or a household earning $150,000 would receive the full credit, but it would gradually decrease as for those with higher incomes, disappearing entirely for individuals with incomes above $215,000 and households with incomes above $290,000.

In an analysis of the earlier version of the GOP bill, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation examined how the change could shift costs within the health insurance market.

"Generally, people who are older, lower-income, or live in high-premium areas (like Alaska and Arizona) receive larger tax credits under [Obamacare] than they would under the American Health Care Act replacement," the group explained in their analysis. "Conversely, some people who are younger, higher-income, or live in low-premium areas (like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington) may receive larger assistance under the replacement plan."

A "continuous coverage requirement" instead of an individual mandate

The Republican plan does away with Obamacare's requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty to the government. However, it replaces that provision with another designed to incentive people to acquire and maintain health insurance.

Under the GOP health care bill, any person who goes without insurance for more than two months would be charged an additional 30 percent in premiums for one year when they re-enter the insurance market. One difference: that penalty would be paid directly to the insurers, rather than the government, as is currently the case.

Medicaid cuts and transfer to states

The GOP plan would dramatically transform Medicaid, the government-provided health insurance program for poorer Americans. Under Obamacare, states had the option to expand Medicaid by offering the program to people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia opted to do so.

In Arizona, Trump supporters split on GOP health bill
Play VIDEO
In Arizona, Trump supporters split on GOP health bill

The GOP plan would freeze Medicaid expansion in 2020. After that time, individuals who qualified for the program in its current form would be allowed to stay on the rolls, but if they leave the program, they wouldn't be allowed back in. The GOP plan would also change the formula used to determine how much money the federal government contributes to the program.

Business Insider's Harrison Jacobs offered a concise breakdown of the change. Under current law, he wrote, "Anyone who meets the eligibility requirements [for Medicaid] has a right to enroll, and if costs go up because of new, expensive treatments or increasing healthcare needs, states receive more federal money."

The GOP plan, Jacobs explained, would "change the federal Medicaid funding to a per-capita spending cap, meaning the federal government would send states a fixed amount of money per Medicaid enrollee, regardless of whether that would cover needs or care, starting in 2020."

The upshot of that change in the funding formula? The government would save roughly $880 billion in Medicaid spending over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office -- but those savings could leave poorer Americans with less access to health care.

The bill gives states the option to receive Medicaid funding as a block grant, rather than a dedicated funding stream. Proponents argue the change would give states more flexibility in administering the program, but critics worry it could erode Medicaid's funding -- and its ability to offer coverage -- over time.

The bill also allows states to impose a work requirement for able-bodied adult Medicaid recipients, and it would allow the federal government to offer higher payments to states to cover older and disabled Medicaid beneficiaries.

Allow states to opt out of some insurance regulations

Obamacare placed a number of regulations on insurance companies, like a ban on insurers declining to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, a ban on insurers placing a lifetime cap on the amount of coverage someone can receive and a series of minimum coverage requirements that stipulate certain kinds of medical care that insurance policies must cover.

Trump's health care promise not backed up by GOP bill
Play VIDEO
Trump's health care promise not backed up by GOP bill

The House GOP bill would roll back these regulations by allowing states to "opt out," or cease requiring insurers in their state to abide by them. Republicans have argued this could lower costs and expand the range of available insurance plans, but they've been sensitive to criticism that the bill would leave Americans with pre-existing conditions without access to coverage.

To address that, the House GOP bill allocates $138 billion over the next 10 years to help states and insurers set up "high-risk pools" that could extend coverage to people whose pre-existing medical conditions might prevent them from obtaining coverage otherwise.

It's unclear whether that proposal will be sufficient. As the New York Times notes, "The bill doesn't explain exactly how these high-risk pools would work. We also don't know how many states would choose to waive the Obamacare insurance regulations and set up high-risk pools instead. But several researchers have compiled estimates on what a well-run high-risk pool would cost, and $138 billion probably wouldn't be enough."

The House GOP bill does keep at least one insurance reform from Obamacare intact: a requirement that young adults be allowed to stay on their parents' insurance plan through age 26.

Repeal of Obamacare's tax increases

The House GOP bill would do away with a number of tax hikes that helped finance the cost of Obamacare, including a tax on some medical device manufacturers, a hike in payroll taxes and investment income taxes for wealthy households, a tax on indoor tanning, and a tax on high-deductible "Cadillac" insurance plans.

Allow insurers to charge older Americans more

Obamacare instituted a requirement that insurers could charge older Americans no more than three times what they charge younger Americans. The House GOP bill would allow insurers to charge older Americans up to five times as much as they charge younger Americans. And it would allow states to seek a waiver to permit insurers to charge older customers even more.

How would this bill impact the uninsured rate?

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the earlier version of the GOP health care bill would cause 24 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage over a decade. The CBO did not have time to score the revised version of the bill before the House voted on it Thursday, but it's unlikely their earlier estimate would drastically change.

What would be the impact on the budget deficit?

An earlier version of the House GOP bill scored by the CBO would have reduced the budget deficit by $150 billion over 10 years, relative to current law. Again, the CBO did not issue a score on today's bill before the vote, but it's likely the fiscal impact of this latest proposal will be similar to that of earlier versions.



REPUBLICANS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS IN LAW MAKING – THIS SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE SAYS SOME THINGS WHICH I HAD SEEN BEFORE, FOR INSTANCE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE MEASURABLY MORE NEGATIVE THAN LIBERALS. BELOW IT SAYS THAT THEY ARE “MORE ATTUNED” TO “ASSESSING POTENTIAL THREATS.” I COULD CALL THAT PARANOID. WHEN I THINK OF THE POGROMS BASED ON THE “THREAT” FROM THE JEWS AND THE LYNCHING OF BLACK MEN (MOSTLY IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO 1980 OR SO) DUE TO THEIR PERCEIVED “THREAT” AS RAPISTS OF WHITE WOMEN. THEN THERE’S THE SIMPLE LACK OF CONCERN FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED SOME HELP. THEY AREN’T MODELING THEMSELVES AFTER THE GOOD SAMARITAN. THEY ARE THE WEALTHY CITIZEN WHO FEARED GETTING HIS HANDS OR CLOTHING SOILED BY TOUCHING AN INJURED MAN. BEING A LIBERAL, I CAN’T HELP THINKING THAT TO CARE AND TO INTERACT ON THE HUMAN LEVEL IS BASIC MORALITY. THE SOCIAL CLASS DIVIDE IS GROWING WIDER AND WIDER. SOMETHING ACTIVE NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT. WE’RE SACRIFICING HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY SO THE PRIVILEGED CAN REMAIN IN THAT STATUS.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/
SA Mind
MIND
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
Psychological insights might tone down the bitter feuding between Democrats and Republicans
By Emily Laber-Warren on September 1, 2012

Credit: ELLEN WEINSTEIN

BLUE STATE, red state. Big government, big business. Gay rights, fetal rights. The United States is riven by the politics of extremes. To paraphrase humor columnist Dave Barry, Republicans think of Democrats as godless, unpatriotic, Volvo-driving, France-loving, elitist latte guzzlers, whereas Democrats dismiss Republicans as ignorant, NASCAR-obsessed, gun-fondling religious fanatics. An exaggeration, for sure, but the reality is still pretty stark. Congress is in a perpetual stalemate because of the two parties' inability to find middle ground on practically anything.

According to the experts who study political leanings, liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently. They are different—in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them. For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.

Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.

“These are not superficial differences. They are psychologically deep,” says psychologist John Jost of New York University, a co-author of the bedroom study. “My hunch is that the capacity to organize the political world into left or right may be a part of human nature.”

Although conservatives and liberals are fundamentally different, hints are emerging about how to bring them together—or at least help them coexist. In his recent book The Righteous Mind, psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the N.Y.U. Stern School of Business argues that liberals and conservatives need not revile one another as immoral on issues such as birth control, gay marriage or health care reform. Even if these two worldviews clash, they are equally grounded in ethics, he writes. Meanwhile studies by Jost and others suggest that political views reside on a continuum that is mediated in part by universal human emotions such as fear. Under certain circumstances, everyone can shift closer to the middle—or drift further apart.

The Fear Factor

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”

Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative. Research conducted by Nail and his colleague in the weeks after September 11, 2001, showed that people of all political persuasions became more conservative in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, in an upcoming study, a team led by Yale University psychologist Jaime Napier found that asking Republicans to imagine that they possessed superpowers and were impermeable to injury made them more liberal. “There is some range within which people can be moved,” Jost says.

More practically, instead of trying to change people's emotional state (an effect that is temporary), astute policy makers might be able to phrase their ideas in a way that appeals to different worldviews. In a 2010 paper Irina Feygina, a social psychology doctoral student at N.Y.U. who works with Jost, found a way to bring conservatives and liberals together on global warming. She and her colleagues wondered whether the impulse to defend the status quo might be driving the conservative pooh-poohing of environmental issues.

In an ingenious experiment, the psychologists reframed climate change not as a challenge to government and industry but as “a threat to the American way of life.” After reading a passage that couched environmental action as patriotic, study participants who displayed traits typical of conservatives were much more likely to sign petitions about preventing oil spills and protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Environmentalism may be an ideal place to find common political ground. “Conservatives who are religious have this mind-set about being good stewards of the earth, to protect God's creation, and that is very compatible with green energy and conservation and other ideas that are usually classified as liberal,” Nail says.

Moral Scorecards

On topics where liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye, opposing sides can try to cultivate mutual respect. In The Righteous Mind, Haidt identifies several areas of morality. Liberals, he says, tend to value two of them: caring for people who are vulnerable and fairness, which for liberals tends to mean sharing resources equally. Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them fairness means proportionality—that people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in. Conservatives also emphasize loyalty and authority, values helpful for maintaining a stable society.

In a 2009 study Haidt and two of his colleagues presented more than 8,000 people with a series of hypothetical actions. Among them: kick a dog in the head; discard a box of ballots to help your candidate win; publicly bet against a favorite sports team; curse your parents to their faces; and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say whether they would do these deeds for money and, if so, for how much—$10? $1,000? $100,000? More? Liberals were reluctant to harm a living thing or act unfairly, even for $1 million, but they were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.

Haidt has a message for both sides. He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's emphasis on laws, institutions, customs and religion is valuable. Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people. Liberal values, on the other hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of weaker members of society are respected; limiting the harmful effects, such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and ways of life.

Haidt is not out to change people's deepest moral beliefs. Yet he thinks that if people could see that those they disagree with are not immoral but simply emphasizing different moral principles, some of the antagonism would subside. Intriguingly, Haidt himself has morphed from liberal to centrist over the course of his research. He now finds value in conservative tenets that he used to reject reflexively: “It's yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both sides are wise to different virtues.”

This article was originally published with the title "Calling a Truce in the Political Wars"

(Further Reading)

The End of the End of Ideology. J. T. Jost in American Psychologist, Vol. 61, No. 7, pages 651–670; October 2006.
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Jonathan Haidt. Pantheon Books, 2012.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

EMILY LABER-WARREN, a freelance writer in New Jersey, directs a science-reporting program at the C.U.N.Y. Graduate School of Journalism.



FINALLY, TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, OUR PARENT PEOPLE, THE BRITS

ANOTHER GENERATION IS PASSING INTO RETIREMENT. I ALWAYS LOVED THE QUEEN AND PRINCE PHILIP. THEY ARE, AS FAR AS I AM ABLE TO TELL, GENTLE PEOPLE. OF COURSE, WHEN THEY ARE GONE, THERE MAY NOT BE ANOTHER RULER IN ENGLAND. I HOPE A RABBLE, RATHER THAN AN ENLIGHTENED CITIZENRY, DOESN’T TAKE OVER THERE AS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IN THE US.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39802636
Prince Philip to step down from carrying out royal engagements
By Peter Hunt, BBC royal correspondent
May 4, 2017

Photograph -- Prince Philip joked with a guest during an engagement, shortly after his retirement was announced

The Duke of Edinburgh is retiring from royal duties this autumn, Buckingham Palace has announced.
Prince Philip, who turns 96 in June, made the decision himself and the Queen supported him, a spokesman said.
"I'm sorry to hear you're standing down", one man told him at a royal lunch on Thursday. "Well, I can't stand up much," the duke quipped.
The duke will attend already scheduled engagements between now and August but will not accept new invitations.
The Queen "will continue to carry out a full programme of official engagements", the palace said.

As it happened: Royal announcement

Decades of royal duty
Prince Philip's memorable quips
Prince Philip's foreign travels in pictures

The duke carried out 110 days of engagements in 2016, making him the fifth busiest member of the royal family, according to Court Circular listings.
He is patron, president or a member of more than 780 organisations and will continue to be associated with them, but "will no longer play an active role by attending engagements", Buckingham Palace said.
In the statement, the spokesman said the duke "may still choose to attend certain public events from time to time".

Hours after the announcement, Prince Philip was at his 26th public engagement of 2017: a service and lunch for members of the Order of Merit at St James's Palace.
At the reception, the duke quipped to mathematician Sir Michael Atiyah that he "can't stand up much".

Analysis

Photograph -- The Duke of Edinburgh at St James's Palace on 4 MayImage copyrightPA
By Peter Hunt, BBC royal correspondent

This is Prince Philip acting on his own advice, nearly six years later.
When he turned 90 he told the BBC it was "better to get out before you reach your sell-by date".
From the autumn, he will follow a path into retirement which is trod by many non-royals once they are in their sixties.
Today's announcement is a significant moment in the recent history of the British Royal Family.

A prince of Greece - with Danish, German and Russian blood - he has served the ancient institution, very publicly, for seven decades.
As an outsider - who was viewed with suspicion by the aristocracy - he struggled at first.
To his critics, he is a gaffe-prone prince.
His many supporters argue that this nonagenarian senior royal has played a crucial role sustaining the monarchy.
It's little wonder then that the Queen once called him her strength and stay.

Read more from Peter Hunt

BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the duke - the longest-serving consort in British history - "clearly feels he now wishes to curtail" his "familiar role" in support of his wife.
He stressed there were "no health considerations" behind the move - other than the normal health precautions for a man in his mid-90s.
The duke attended Lord's Cricket Ground to open a new stand on Wednesday and was heard joking at the event that he is the "world's most experienced plaque unveiler".
He is famed for off-the-cuff remarks he has made at royal engagements over the years.

Media caption Prince Philip feeds Donna the elephant at the opening of the Centre for Elephant Care at Whipsnade Zoo

Prime Minister Theresa May said she offered the country's "deepest gratitude and good wishes" to the duke and praised his "steadfast support" for the Queen.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn wished the duke "all the best in his well-earned retirement", saying: "His Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme has inspired young people for more than 60 years in over 140 nations."
Prince Philip set up the awards in 1956 and they have become one of the UK's best-known youth programmes, with young people carrying out challenges to earn bronze, silver or gold awards.

The Duke of Edinburgh

96 years old next month
70 years as Queen's companion
110 days of engagements in 2016
785 organisations have him as patron, president or member
4 million people have taken part in Duke of Edinburgh Awards
Source: Buckingham Palace
PA
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said it was a moment to "celebrate and take stock" of the duke's "enormous achievements".
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the "steadfast support" the duke had given the Queen was "hugely admirable".

Still on the diary

Photograph -- The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh Image copyrightAFP/GETTY
Image caption
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh celebrate their 70th wedding anniversary later this year

Buckingham Palace publishes details of official engagements up to eight weeks in advance. For the Duke of Edinburgh, these include:

Visiting Pangbourne College, Berkshire, for its centenary - 9 May
Presenting prizes at the Royal Windsor Horse Show - 14 May
Attending a dinner marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of Pakistan - 18 May
Visiting the Chelsea Flower Show - 22 May
Holding receptions for young people who have achieved a gold Duke of Edinburgh award - 24 May
Attending evensong to celebrate the centenary of the Companions of Honour - 13 June
Presenting the Prince Philip Award at ZSL London Zoo - 27 June
Hosting King Felipe of Spain during his state visit - from 12 July
US President Donald Trump is also due to make a state visit to the UK later this year, but no date has been announced for his trip.
The duke and the Queen celebrate their platinum wedding anniversary - their 70th - in November.

They have called a halt to long-haul travel in recent years, with younger royals carrying out those duties.
Royal commentator Dickie Arbiter said the duke is in "robust health", adding: "He is not giving up on life, just stepping [down] from full-time public engagements".

To date, the duke has:
Carried out 22,191 solo engagements
Taken part in 637 solo overseas visits
Given 5,493 speeches
Authored 14 books

The Queen and Duke of EdinburghImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Photograph -- The Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen waved as they made their way to an engagement on Thursday

Former royal butler Grant Harrold said: "I love his wit and I think people will miss seeing that on a day-to-day basis. But I don't think it's him disappearing, I think it's just him being very sensible, he's 95 years old. "He's slowing down and I'm sure we will still hear and see of him from time to time."


THE YOUNG ROYALS DEALING WITH RACE IN A MODERN AND PROGRESSIVE WAY, THOUGH IN THE CASE OF PRINCE HARRY THE BRITISH PRESS CALLED IT “SCANDALOUS.”

https://www.attn.com/stories/7892/british-royals-hid-racist-painting-from-obamas
This Is the Painting the Royal Family Had to Hide Before the Obamas' Visit
APRIL 29TH 2016
By: Tricia Tongco, @triciatongco

Picture this: You’re British royalty, and the Obamas are coming over for dinner.

Michelle and Barack Obama
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
There’s so much to do — ask about food allergies, iron those curtains, and oh yeah...

Take down the racist label affixed to that one massive painting hanging in the sitting room.

wow shocked damn oh shit

This is the exact dilemma one aide to the British royal family faced last week when President Obama and Michelle Obama visited Kensington Palace for a dinner hosted by Prince William and Duchess Kate.

Prince William and President Obama
KGC-375/STAR MAX/IPX

Prior to their visit last Friday, the assistant realized a massive oil painting in William and Kate’s sitting room bore the title ‘The Negro Page,’ etched onto a plaque attached to the artwork’s frame, according to The Sun.

"The Negro Page" painting
WIKIPEDIA
Duchess Kate reportedly chose The 1652 painting by Dutch artist Aelbert Cuyp from the Royal Collection.

Screenshot of Royal Collection website
Depicting an African servant guarding horses and dogs as his presumable masters carry a conversation nearby, the work is listed on the Royal Collection’s website under its more politically correct title, “A Page with Two Horses.”

While the painting remained, someone had to hastily remove the plaque with a screwdriver and cover up the discoloration on the artwork with a potted plant, according to The Sun.

It appears, however, that dinner went off without a hitch.

Whew, time for a drink.

prince drink william
[h/t Hyperallergic and The Sun]


HARRY’S BIRACIAL LADY FRIEND IS NOT REALLY BLACK, SHE IS THE BEAUTIFUL SHADE OF A CAFÉ AU LAIT WITH PLENTY OF LAIT. SHE IS ALSO A KNOCKOUT.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/02/prince-harry-britain-race-royals
Monarchy Opinion
Meghan Markle, Prince Harry and the myth of royal purity
Afua Hirsch
Wednesday 2 November 2016 11.49 EDT

The prince’s new black girlfriend has set tongues wagging. But despite talk of ‘blue blood’, the aristocracy has a history of mixed-race relationships

Photograph -- ‘The very concept of the royal family is the antithesis of diversity. If Harry was previously oblivious to the complex world of race and identity, he’s about to get a crash course.’ Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA

It’s a subtle point, easily missed. Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s apparent new love, is a “glamorous brunette”, “a departure from Prince Harry’s usual type” and “not in the society blonde style of previous girlfriends”, according to the Daily Mail. I think what they are trying to say is that Markle, actor, global development ambassador and lifestyle blogger, is black.

Or, to be more precise, Markle is what Americans call “biracial”. The actor, who grew up in LA but lives in Toronto, has spoken extensively about her dual heritage – her father white and a mother she describes as “100% black” – and her quest for her identity over the years.

Meghan Markle
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Meghan Markle Photograph: Ian West/PA

The British press have a different approach. They have made it clear that her relationship with Harry is scandalous, for a number of reasons: she is divorced; she is older (Markle is 35, Harry 32); she’s played raunchy scenes in the US TV series Suits – and her mother is visibly black, with dreadlocks.

These details would be unremarkable – irrelevant, inappropriate, even – were it any other celebrity romance. But Prince Harry, fifth in line to the British throne, is a different matter. The very concept of the royal family is the antithesis of diversity. The terminology says it all: “blue blood”, from the Spanish sagre azul, coined in the late 1500s to distinguish between the racially superior white Christian nobility (with pale skin revealing blue veins) and the Jews, Muslims and West Africans whom Europeans were increasingly ousting from their continent.

In spite of its roots, we are apparently still perfectly comfortable using the phrase, even though royal blood has probably been mixed for centuries. There have been Africans throughout Europe since at least Roman times, and marriages between European royals, with their fondness for black servants, slaves and extramarital reproduction, make it unsurprising that Queen Charlotte, wife of George III – described, in an era when slaves were omnipresent, as “ugly”, with a dark complexion and flared nostrils – may well have had some African heritage. So might Queen Philippa, wife of Edward III, described as having broad nostrils and a wide mouth, and as being “brown of skin all over”.

We are as unwilling to embrace the ethnic heritage of the royal family as we are to investigate their centuries-old links with the slave trade. When asked about Queen Charlotte’s origins a few years ago, the royal historian Hugo Vickers assured Brits that even if African blood had penetrated the royal bloodline “there would be no shame attached to it” and “it certainly wouldn’t show that they are significantly black”. What a relief.

As for the Markles of this world – black people who are linked to the aristocracy in modern times – there is some evidence of what awaits. Emma McQuiston, the mixed-heritage socialite who married the heir to the 16th-century Longleat estate, Viscount Weymouth, faced blatant racism, with the viscount’s mother allegedly asking him: “Are you sure about what you’re doing to 400 years of bloodline?” McQuiston told Tatler she faced prejudice on multiple fronts. “There’s class,” she said, “and then there’s the racial thing.”

Other “aristoblacks”, as some call them, have had their share of grief. Nimmy March, adopted daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Richmond, has spoken about the discrimination she faced as a child. And I’ve heard of the MP Chuka Umunna, whose maternal grandfather was Sir Helenus Milmo QC, prosecutor at Nuremberg, being dismissed disparagingly for embracing a black identity when he is descended from posh English stock. The two, in the British imagination, are often still seen as mutually exclusive.

Aristocratic bloodlines sullied – how do the well-to-do sleep?
Hugh Muir

Who knows whether it’s intentional racism or just ignorance, but our society’s most privileged members seem to be sufficiently lacking in education that Prince Philip could liken the Nigerian president’s traditional costume to pyjamas (“You look like you’re ready for bed,” he told Olusegun Obasanjo); and Prince Harry could, unforgettably, don a Nazi outfit to a fancy dress party.

If Harry was previously oblivious to the complex world of race and identity, he’s about to get a crash course. News of his latest relationship threatens to bring Britain’s simmering, unresolved issues with the myth of royal racial purity into the open. Markle may have found peace in the grey spaces of mixed identities, and has spoken of both her positive experience of blackness and the negative – seeing her mother called the N-word, and being passed over for acting roles by an industry that regarded her as too black to play a white role and too white to play a black one.

Markle is proud of her heritage. And that’s the real difference between her and the royals – a family who have ignored questions about their history, swept them under the carpet and, frankly, hoped no one would notice.



THE ELDER BRITISH ROYALS ON RACISM – SOME COMMENTS THAT ARE UNFORTUNATE, INCLUDING ONE BY THE QUEEN. WE ARE A RACIST SOCIETY; THE HUMAN BEING IS A RACIST ANIMAL. ONE BY ONE, WE MUST TRY TO DO BETTER. GROUPS ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS, EACH OF WHOSE INNER SELF ADDS TO AN OPEN AND CARING SOCIETY/WORLD.

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201606131041245266-uk-monarchy-royal-racism/
Racism and the Monarchy: 10 Times the UK Royals Went a Little Too Far
15:37 13.06.2016(updated 13:35 15.06.2016)

A VIDEO TRIP THROUGH HISTORY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irbZbqDJXB4