June 30, 2017


News and Views


THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF EXAMINATION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MAKING OF GOOD DECISIONS, WHETHER IN SCIENCE OR IN OTHER FIELDS. I HAVE PLACED THIS ARTICLE FIRST BECAUSE WHEN POLITICIANS, BY GUILE OR BY FORCE, TRY TO STAMP OUT A SOCIETY’S ABILITY TO TELL TRUTH FROM FICTION -- OR TO MANDATE ANY BELIEF AT ALL, WHETHER RELIGIOUS OR OTHER -- IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO STAND UP.

THE WAR ON SCIENCE BOTHERS ME MORE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE THING THAT HAS OCCURRED SINCE 1945, BECAUSE CONVINCING PEOPLE TO DENY REALITY IS A FORM OF KILLING THEM OUTRIGHT. IT KILLS THE MIND’S PRIMARY FUNCTION OF BASIC AND EFFECTIVE INTELLIGENCE, AND THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL. SECONDLY, IT IS A NECESSARY STEP IN A NATION OF OUR SIZE AND COMPLEXITY TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULD ALLOW DESPOTISM TO TAKE OVER. IT CONFUSES PERSONAL VIRTUE WITH SHEEPLIKE OBEDIENCE. BEING “IDEOLOGICALLY VULNERABLE” IS A DEADLY CHARACTERISTIC FOR A DEMOCRATIC CITIZEN, AND A DIRECT PATH TO AN ACQUIRED INABILITY TO TELL GOOD FROM EVIL.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sheeplike
“like or suggestive of a sheep in docility or stupidity or meekness or timidity”

Synonyms:
sheepish, docile
willing to be taught or led or supervised or directed

Usage Examples:
“It’s part of Yee’s precocity to realize that a population molded into sheeplike complaisance is ideologically vulnerable.”
The New Yorker Apr 10, 2015



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epa-accused-interfering-top-science-adviser-s-congressional-testimony-n777916
NEWS JUN 28 2017, 10:55 PM ET
EPA Accused of Interfering With Top Science Adviser’s Congressional Testimony
by ALEX JOHNSON

Congressional Democrats have demanded an independent investigation into allegations that a senior Environmental Protection Agency official interfered politically with congressional testimony by one of the agency's top scientific advisers.

In testimony before a House science subcommittee on May 23, the scientist, Deborah Swackhamer, chairwoman of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors, raised numerous concerns about what she saw as a political agenda at the EPA to "marginalize" and "politicize" scientific data used to shape agency policy since Scott Pruitt was confirmed as the agency's administrator in February.

Scientist Says EPA Pressured Her on Testimony Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Scientist Says EPA Pressured Her on Testimony 6:22

As attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt sued the agency he now heads several times, and he wrote in 2014 that the "debate" over global warming "is far from settled."

In both her written and her live testimony before the subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Swackhamer stressed that she was speaking as a private citizen and an independent scientific expert, not in her role as head of the EPA advisory committee.

But internal EPA emails published this week by Republicans on the committee show that before the hearing, Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, sent a memo saying, "I need to contact Ms. Swackhammer [sic] as soon as possible to get a copy of her testimony and discuss her question period before the Science Committee."

Swackhamer responded that she wouldn't be representing the EPA at the hearing and that she wouldn't "cross the line" by revealing any non-public information.

Then, the day before her committee appearance, Jackson sent Swackhamer two emails informing her that he'd obtained and reviewed her prepared testimony — even though it had already been submitted to the committee and was under embargo. An attachment to one of the emails included a list of official EPA "talking points" that she should adhere to. The attachment itself wasn't made public.

A spokesperson for the EPA told NBC News late Wednesday: "It is customary for the office of general counsel and the chief of staff to provide guidance to an EPA employee testifying in front of Congress, including the importance of providing factual information and to clarify if they are speaking as an individual, rather than on behalf of the agency."

Image: Scott Pruitt
Scott Pruitt, now administrator of the the Environmental Protection Agency, during a congressional meeting in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 4. Cliff Owen / AP

In a letter (PDF) to Arthur Elkins, the EPA's independent inspector general, the ranking Democrats on the full committee and on the Science subcommittee — Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, respectively — alleged this week that Jackson's emails "were inappropriate and may have violated federal regulations."

The letter was also signed by Don Beyer, D-Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the full committee's oversight subcommittee.

"The right to communicate with Congress is guaranteed," they wrote, adding: "Attempting to interfere with or obstruct the testimony of any individual to the U.S. Congress is a matter that should be taken extremely seriously and we trust that you will conduct a thorough investigation of the matter."

The specific point of contention involves the EPA's decision not to renew the terms of nine members of Swackhamer's advisory committee — half of the entire panel.

In response to questions from committee members, Swackhamer repeated several times that Pruitt had the "absolute right" to determine the makeup of the committee, but she said Wednesday night on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" that the decision was crippling in the meantime.

"We're sort of in suspended animation because all of our future meetings have been canceled," Swackhamer said. And the meetings were canceled, she said, because there aren't enough "warm bodies" left on the advisory board.

Image: Deborah Swackhamer
Deborah Swackhamer, chairwoman of the Environmental Protection Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors. Courtesy University of Minnesota

Swackhamer said she felt "intimidated" by the correspondence.

"I kept getting these emails, and then I got that final email: We want you to change your testimony," she said, asking: "Who are they to tell me about my testimony?"

In a statement releasing the correspondence, Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, accused Johnson, Bonamici and Beyer of seeking to "hijack committee hearings for their own politically motivated agenda."

Smith said the correspondence showed that Swackhamer "failed to adhere to EPA processes for reviewing testimony" and that Jackson "sought only to clarify a point in Swackhamer's testimony regarding Administrator Pruitt's decision to evaluate the [advisory council's] membership."

Swackhamer wrote in one of her replies that she had, in fact, cleared her testimony with the EPA's science office.

In her May testimony, Swackhamer — an emerita professor of science, technology and public policy and co-director of the Water Resources Center at the University of Minnesota — lamented what she characterized as EPA leaders' campaign to skew raw science to push a political agenda.

"My concern is that the science that is needed to develop good environmental policy, whether it's done at the state or federal level, will simply not be available if the path that we're going down currently continues to be followed," she said.

"My personal fear is that the actions taken at the federal government [level] are, in fact, diminishing the role of science," she said. "Certainly, they're not celebrating the role of science."

CORRECTION (June 28, 2017, 9:20 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misidentified the legislators who released the emails between Swackhamer and Jackson. It was Republicans on the House science committee, not Democrats.

Alex Johnson ALEX JOHNSON



WILL REPUBLICANS ALLOW THIS TO GO THROUGH WITHOUT A HUGE FIGHT? I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE MOVEMENT HAS STARTED, WHATEVER HAPPENS. I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT ON YESTERDAY’S BLOG I CALLED FOR AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF SOME SORT TO SPOT PRESIDENTIAL DISABILITIES THAT WOULD PREVENT HIS PERFORMING THE JOB AT AN ACCEPTABLE AND NECESSARY LEVEL. THIS SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE NEED, ONLY I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE PERMANENT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR LEGAL SCHOLARS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL VOICES TO BE IN THE GROUP. I HAVE ALSO CALLED FOR PLACING A MUCH MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCEDURE THAN WHAT WE NOW HAVE ON THE METHOD OF ACTUALLY REMOVING HIM OR HER. WHAT WE HAVE IS TOO EASY TO BLOCK; AND WHILE I’M AT IT, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENCY SHOULD BE ULTIMATELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF CONGRESS AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. WE ARE NOT A MONARCHY AND WE SHOULD ALLOW NO DESPOTS HERE.

I WANT TO SEE THE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE, AS BRITAIN HAS, PUT INTO PLACE HERE, WITH TEETH. THE DESPOT WOULD BE REMOVED PHYSICALLY BY SOLDIERS IF NECESSARY, AND GIVEN A SPEEDY TRIAL (MORE SPEEDY THAN USUALLY HAPPENS), AND THEN PUT DIRECTLY INTO AN ASYLUM OR PRISON, IF NEED BE, TO AWAIT A HEARING. “I’M CONVINCED MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE WE ARE LIVING IN A VERY STRANGE REALITY.” SOMEHOW, I NOW NO LONGER HATE TRUMP. I FEEL A LITTLE SORRY FOR HIM. ON THE HUMAN LEVEL, THIS IS SAD. THIS IS DEFINITELY THE THING TO DO, THOUGH. NOW IF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WILL SIMPLY PUT STEEL INTO THEIR SPINES AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THE USA WILL HAVE PROVEN NOT ONLY HER GREATNESS, BUT HER FLEXIBILITY. THERE IS AN OLD ASIAN SAYING, OR PERHAPS IT’S FROM THE BIBLE, BUT IT SAYS THAT A WILLOW IS STRONGER THAN AN OAK. WHEN A FIERCE WIND COMES UP, IT BENDS TEMPORARILY, WHEREAS THE OAK WILL BREAK OR MORE OFTEN, BLOW TOTALLY OVER ONTO THE GROUND.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-create-panel-remove-trump-office-quietly-picks-democratic-support-124521145.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=60f73942-c8f9-11e5-bc86-fa163e798f6a&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Bill to create panel that could remove Trump from office quietly picks up Democratic support
Michael Isikoff Yahoo News June 30, 2017

Photograph -- President Trump (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

For months, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have privately counseled their more militant members to forswear talk of impeaching President Trump, telling them the political support for such a step simply doesn’t exist in the GOP-controlled Congress.

But 21 House Democrats, including the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, are now pushing an equally radical alternative: They are backing a bill that would create a congressional “oversight” commission that could declare the president incapacitated, leading to his removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

At 12:56 p.m. Thursday, barely four hours after Trump tweeted attacks against MSNBC cable host Mika Brzezinski in crude, personal terms, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the chief sponsor of the bill, sent out an email to his colleagues, urging them to get behind the measure, writing it was of “enduring importance to the security of our nation.”

“In case of emergency, break glass,” Raskin told Yahoo News in an interview. “If you look at the record of things that have happened since January, it is truly a bizarre litany of events and outbursts.” Asked if Trump’s latest tweets attacking Brzezinski and her co-host Joe Scarborough — which were roundly condemned by members of both parties as beneath the dignity of his office — strengthened the grounds for invoking the 25th Amendment, Raskin replied: “I assume every human being is allowed one or two errant and seemingly deranged tweets. The question is whether you have a sustained pattern of behavior that indicates something is seriously wrong.” (Brzezinski and her Scarborough’s response to Trump’s tweets ran in today’s Washington Post under the headline, “The President is not well.” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump’s tweets Thursday, saying he “fights fire with fire.”)

To be sure, even Raskin acknowledges Congress and the country are in largely uncharted waters. The 25th Amendment was adopted in 1967 in response to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and past presidential medical crises — including the heart attacks of Dwight Eisenhower and the illnesses of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson — to deal with instances where presidents become incapacitated and unable to perform the duties of their office.

One of its provisions, known as Section 4, empowers the vice president along with a majority of the Cabinet to make a determination that a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office, and then provide it in writing to Congress, resulting in the president’s removal. It’s a step that has never been taken.

But Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, has seized on some largely overlooked language in Section 4 as the basis for his bill. It turns out it doesn’t only have to be the Cabinet that makes a finding of presidential incapacity. The section also permits “such other body as Congress may by law provide” — along with the vice president — to reach the same conclusion.

Yet in the 50 years since the 25th Amendment took effect, Congress has never set up such a body. Raskin’s bill would do so. It calls for the creation of an “Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity.” The commission would be a nonpartisan panel appointed by congressional leaders composed of four physicians, four psychiatrists and three others — such as former presidents, vice presidents or other former senior U.S. government officials. The commission, if directed by Congress through a concurrent resolution, would be empowered to conduct an examination of the president “to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks at the “March for Truth” protest in Washington, D.C.View photos
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks at the “March for Truth” protest in Washington, D.C., June 3. (Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

The 25th Amendment itself says nothing about the guidelines for making such a determination, much less what kinds of perceived mental illnesses would make a president unable to perform his duties. But Raskin, who first introduced his bill in April, said that he’s been getting increased interest in the legislation among colleagues, including Republicans who have privately approached him about it on the House floor. “I’ve had tons of inquiries and lots of colleagues have been talking to me about it,” he said. “I’m convinced most Americans believe we are living in a very strange reality. … The question is, what are the escape routes we have, and the 25th Amendment is one of them.”

Raskin’s bill so far has been quietly picking up support in the Democratic caucus. Among the co-sponsors who have signed are Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee (and the only member of Congress who was around when the 25th Amendment was enacted), and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the former chair of the Democratic National Committee.

But despite some talk of the 25th Amendment option in conservative circles — New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently urged that it be considered and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy tweeted about it Thursday — so far no Republican members of Congress have signed on to the idea. “It’s really a political decision,” said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who has also co-sponsored Raskin’s bill. While many of his GOP colleagues are, in the privacy of the House cloakroom, “shaking their heads” and “embarrassed” by the president, “they can’t say anything publicly” given the core support Trump has so far retained among their base, he said.

Indeed, in some respects, the political obstacles to executing the 25th Amendment are even greater than impeachment, notes Joel K. Goldstein, a professor of law at St. Louis University. Under its provisions, if a president challenged a finding of incapacity and demanded that he or she be reinstalled in office, it would require two-thirds of both chambers to block the commander in chief from doing so. (By contrast, it only takes a majority of the House to impeach a president, although two thirds of the Senate must vote to convict and remove the president.)

Moreover, as Goldstein notes, even if Congress were to create the body called for in Raskin’s bill, it couldn’t act to declare the president incapacitated without the concurrence of the vice president. That means Vice President Mike Pence could effectively block any move to invoke the 25th Amendment option. “The vice president is a necessary party. He effectively has a veto,” said Goldstein. “He’s a deal breaker.”

Still, Raskin is undeterred. “The question is, where are we going to be six months, 12 months, 18 months from now? The presidency is considered extremely stressful for people with the strongest mental health. We need to be prepared for all eventualities.”



IT ISN’T JUST THE LEGISLATURE WHO ARE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE PRESIDENT’S BIZARRE AND VERY UNSEEMLY BEHAVIOR. THE BELEAGUERED PRESS ARE FIGHTING BACK WITH BOTH FISTS. SEE BELOW.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-tv-host-tweet-targets-mika-brzezinski-and-joe-scarborough-fire-back/
CBS/AP June 30, 2017, 6:11 AM
TV hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough fire back after Trump's Twitter attack

WASHINGTON – TV news hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Friday responded to President Trump's crude Twitter attack on Brzezinski a day earlier that drew bipartisan howls of outrage and left fellow Republicans beseeching him: Stop, please just stop.

"We don't even know how to respond to this as a country. We don't know how to deal with this guy and we have friends inside the White House that have told us over the past month they're getting more concerned about his emotional state and also more concerned at the same time about what's happening across the world," Scarborough said on their MSNBC show, "Morning Joe."

Brzezinski added, "It's amazing how many lies he packed into two tweets." She then recounted their visit to Mar-a-Lago where she said she noticed facelifts everywhere.

"Talk about facelifts...whoa, Palm Beach," she said. Speaking of my face, while we're there, I had my chin tweaked -- the skin under my chin...I'm pretty transparent about what I do and I think it looks awesome."

Mr. Trump's tweets, aimed at Brzezinski and Scarborough, her "Morning Joe" co-host and fiancé, revived concerns about his views of women in a city where civility already is in short supply and he is struggling for any support he can get for his proposals on health care, immigration and other controversial issues.

"I heard poorly rated Morning Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore)," Mr. Trump tweeted to his nearly 33 million followers Thursday morning. "Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!"

In a Washington Post op-ed published Friday, the co-hosts wrote, "President Trump launched personal attacks against us Thursday, but our concerns about his unmoored behavior go far beyond the personal. America's leaders and allies are asking themselves yet again whether this man is fit to be president. We have our doubts, but we are both certain that the man is not mentally equipped to continue watching our show, 'Morning Joe."'

"The president's unhealthy obsession with our show has been in the public record for months, and we are seldom surprised by his posting nasty tweets about us. During the campaign, the Republican nominee called Mika 'neurotic' and promised to attack us personally after the campaign ended. This year, top White House staff members warned that the National Enquirer was planning to publish a negative article about us unless we begged the president to have the story spiked. We ignored their desperate pleas.

Trump's latest Twitter attack reverberates across Washington.
Play VIDEO
Trump's latest Twitter attack reverberates across Washington.

"The president's unhealthy obsession with 'Morning Joe' does not serve the best interests of either his mental state or the country he runs. Despite his constant claims that he no longer watches the show, the president's closest advisers tell us otherwise. That is unfortunate. We believe it would be better for America and the rest of the world if he would keep his 60-inch-plus flat-screen TV tuned to 'Fox & Friends."'

The tweets served to unite Democrats and Republicans for once in a chorus of protest that amounted to perhaps the loudest outcry since Mr. Trump took office.

"Obviously I don't see that as an appropriate comment," said Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called Mr. Trump's tweets, "blatantly sexist." The president, she added, "happens to disrespect women ... it's sad."

Republican Sen. James Lankford, of Oklahoma, even linked the president's harsh words to the June 14 shootings of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others.

"The president's tweets today don't help our political or national discourse and do not provide a positive role model for our national dialogue," Lankford said, noting that he had just chaired a hearing on the shootings.

The president's tweets even drew tough coverage at Fox News Channel, a usually friendly media outlet.

Anchor Shepard Smith led his afternoon newscast with Mr. Trump's actions, which he said "some critics are calling sexist cyberbullying."

On Mr. Trump's level of insult-trading, Brzezinski responded on Twitter by posting a photograph of a Cheerios box that included the phrase "made for little hands." People looking to get under the president's skin have long suggested that his hands appear small for his frame.

Mr. Trump's allies cast his outburst as positive, an example of his refusal to be bullied.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president was "pushing back against people who have attacked him day after day after day. Where is the outrage on that?"

"The American people elected a fighter; they didn't elect somebody to sit back and do nothing," she added.

First lady Melania Trump, who has vowed to fight cyberbullying while her husband is president, gave his tweets a pass.

"As the first lady has stated publicly in the past, when her husband gets attacked, he will punch back 10 times harder," her communications director, Stephanie Grisham, said in a statement.

As Mr. Trump welcomed South Korean President Moon Jae-in for a White House dinner Thursday evening, he didn't respond to shouted questions from reporters about whether he regretted the tweet.

Some of the administration's most high-profile women - daughter and presidential assistant Ivanka Mr. Trump, Counselor Kellyanne Conway and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell - did not respond to requests for comment.

The White House has shown increasing irritation over harsh coverage of the president on "Morning Joe," including commentary questioning Mr. Trump's mental state.

About two hours before his tweets, Brzezinski said on the show that "it's not normal behavior" for any leader to be tweeting about people's appearances or to be bullying, lying, undermining managers and throwing people under the bus. She said that if any business executive behaved the way Mr. Trump does, "there would be concern that perhaps the person who runs the company is out of his mind."

On Wednesday, she had mocked Mr. Trump after a story in The Washington Post said he had posted fake Time magazine covers of himself in some of his golf resorts.

"Nothing makes a man feel better than making a fake cover of a magazine about himself, lying every day and destroying the country," Brzezinski said.

Mr. Trump, who has a habit of throwing up distractions to deflect bad news, has been straining to advance his agenda lately, with the Senate this week coming up short in finding enough votes to begin debate on a bill to roll back President Obama's health care law.

His demeaning broadside against a woman raised new complaints among critics who have long accused him of sexism and inflaming tensions in a deeply polarized nation. Mr. Trump also has consistently stoked a long-running feud with the press that has not hurt him with his base of roughly a third of the electorate.

But one expert rejected the idea that Mr. Trump's tweets about the MSNBC hosts amounted to a calculated push-back against the media.

"It's not a critique of the press. It's a diatribe. It's a rant," said Theodore L. Glasser, professor emeritus at Stanford University and an expert in mass media.

It wasn't the first time Mr. Trump has assailed a television personality who is a woman. In 2015, he went after then-Fox News Channel host Megyn Kelly when she questioned him at a debate. Mr. Trump said later that during the exchange, Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever."

It's also far from the only time he's raised eyebrows with remarks about the physical attributes of women.

Just this week in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump interrupted his phone conversation with the new prime minister of Ireland to remark on a "beautiful" Irish journalist in the room and take note of the "nice smile on her face." [NOTE: That isn’t all he said about her.]

The latest flare-up did nothing to improve Mr. Trump's chances of advancing the health care bill that formed a centerpiece of his campaign.

"This has to stop - we all have a job - 3 branches of gov't and media," tweeted Republican Susan Collins of Maine, a critic of the Senate GOP bill. "We don't have to get along, but we must show respect and civility."

Tweeted Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a frequent Mr. Trump critic: "Please just stop. This isn't normal and it's beneath the dignity of your office." Agreed South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham: "Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America."

Brzezinski and Scarborough have known Mr. Trump for years and interviewed him numerous times during the campaign. But they have been highly critical of Mr. Trump since he took office.

They did meet with Mr. Trump at his Florida estate on New Year's Eve for what they described as a brief visit, and also spent time with the president and senior staff at the White House in February. But Brzezinski supporters disputed Mr. Trump's characterization of the Mar-a-Lago meeting, saying it was the president who repeatedly asked the couple to visit him. Brzezinski and Scarborough were staying in the area for the holidays.

NBC News spokeswoman Lorie Acio said in a statement, "It's a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing his job."


ON THE RETURNING ISIS RECRUITS: "WE WERE POOR AND HUNGRY," KHALAF SAID. "EITHER YOU JOIN ISIS AND EARN A SALARY OR YOU HAVE NOTHING." THIS IS ALMOST ALWAYS WHY THE POOR RESPOND THAT WAY TO SUCH A GROUP AS THE TALIBAN, OR NOW ISIS. WHY, EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY, WHERE THERE IS INDEED AN ACTIVE STRAIN OF PURE PATRIOTISM, MOST POOR YOUNG MEN JOIN IN ORDER TO GET WORK, A DECENT SALARY, HEALTH INSURANCE, ETC., ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT BRILLIANT OR ACADEMICALLY INCLINED. WE ALL NEED BASIC THINGS, THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T DOING MUCH TO HELP PROVIDE ALL OF OUR NEEDS, AND THE TALIBAN (OR DEAR OLD UNCLE SAM) SAYS THEY WILL.

ALSO, THOUGH I HATE TO BRING THIS UP, SOME CULTURES ARE SCRAPPIER THAN OTHERS – WARLIKE, AS IT IS MORE PROPERLY CALLED. DESPITE WHAT SOME PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THE LOVELY NATURE OF PIT BULLS, THEY WERE BRED NOT ONLY TO FIGHT, BUT TO KILL, AND I PERSONALLY WILL NEVER HAVE ONE. MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLE AREN’T NECESSARILY LIKE THAT, OF COURSE, AND I DON’T FOR A MOMENT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD KEEP ISLAMIC PEOPLE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. I HAVE KNOWN FOUR ISLAMIC PEOPLE WELL AND THEY ARE WONDERFUL, SMART, WARM PEOPLE. A GOOD CITIZEN IS A GOOD CITIZEN, WHATEVER THEIR RELIGION AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND; BUT THE OPPOSITE IS ALSO TRUE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ANY INBORN TRAITS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS MODIFIED BY OUR INDIVIDUAL UPBRINGING. A PIT BULL IS A PIT BULL, BUT IF IN TRYING TO “MASTER IT,” YOU ABUSE IT, FRIGHTEN IT, AND ANGER IT, THEN YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET. I OFTEN THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE BABIES OR ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO DEEPLY STUPID. THEY SIMPLY CAN’T BE TAUGHT HOW TO TREAT THEM OR WHY ANY BEING EXCEPT THEMSELVES MATTERS IN LIFE. OF COURSE, IF WE HAD MANDATORY TRAINING FOR ALL PARENTS-TO-BE IN DEALING WITH CHILDREN, THAT MIGHT HELP OUR SOCIETY. I CAN JUST HEAR THE PUBLIC OUTCRY IF THAT WERE SUGGESTED IN THIS COUNTRY. “SHE’S MY CHILD, AND I DESERVE TO TREAT HER ANYWAY I WANT TO.” SO, OKAY, I AM VOICING A SATIRICAL AND PURPOSELY PROVOCATIVE STATEMENT HERE, AND I HOPE YOU WILL FORGIVE ME FOR THAT. IT’S JUST THAT I BELIEVE CITIZENS’ RIGHTS ARE LIMITED BY HUMAN NEEDS.

AS FOR THE ISLAMIC PEOPLE WHO COME HERE, WE DO NEED TO HELP THEM ADAPT HERE, RATHER THAN HARASSING AND SHUNNING THEM. FREQUENT MISTREATMENT CAUSES HATRED. HATRED IS NOT, IN MY BOOK, A SIN, SO MUCH AS A NORMAL HUMAN REACTION TO CERTAIN SITUATIONS. IF ANGER IS ONE OF THE HUMAN RACE’S PRIMARY ADAPTATIONS TO THE SITUATION IN THE WORLD, AND IT IS, AND OFTEN THE IMPETUS NECESSARY TO GIVE US THE PURE GRIT TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THEN IT ISN’T NECESSARILY THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD. HATRED IS A MUCH MORE HARDENED AND PSYCHIATRICALLY TWISTED FORM OF IT, OF COURSE. A MAN WHO SIMPLY CAN’T DEFEND HIMSELF OR HIS CHILD, WIFE, SISTER, FRIEND, IN MY VIEW, IS IN FACT A POOR EXCUSE FOR A MAN. OF COURSE, I DRAW THE LINE AT CONSTANT AND MINDLESS VIOLENCE, AS SOMETIMES SEEMS TO ME TO BE CASE IN PARTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

THE MOST AGGRESSIVE FORMS OF ISLAM, AND THERE ARE SOME, INVOLVE MORE THAN A NATURAL HUMAN REACTION. THEY’RE A CULTURALLY INDUCED “PHILOSOPHY” THAT IS, IN MY VIEW, EVIL. I PUT THOSE RABBLE ROUSERS IN VARIOUS FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHO INFLAME THE MINDS OF YOUNG MALES TO GO FIGHT FOR MOHAMMAD, OR HOWEVER THEY WOULD PHRASE THAT IDEA, IN A CLASS WITH ANY CRIMINAL. THEIR “RELIGION” SERVES NO GOOD PURPOSE AT ALL, AND YET IT IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DO GREAT HARM. I’VE ALWAYS ADMIRED THE QUAKERS. I’VE NEVER HEARD ANY EVIL AGAINST THEM.

WHENEVER ANY FAITH BECOMES NO LONGER A GENTLING INFLUENCE, BUT A GROUP-DRIVEN ATTEMPT AT CONQUEST, THEN IT BECOMES NO LONGER A RELIGION AT ALL; THEREFORE, IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN’T BE GIVEN FREEDOM FROM TAXATION AND UNQUESTIONING TOTAL RESPECT, AS WE FIND IN THIS COUNTRY; AND IF IT INDUCES VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, THE REWARD FOR THAT SHOULD BE PRISON. AN IMAM WHO PREACHES MURDEROUS BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE PUT INTO FEDERAL PRISON FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR HIM TO TRULY REPENT. I WOULD EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT THE RACKETEERING LAW (RICO) MAKES SENSE, HERE, BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE SIMPLY CRIMINALS. IT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING IDEA IF SUCH PEOPLE (CATHOLICS WHO SHOOT ABORTION DOCTORS, FOR INSTANCE) WERE AUTOMATICALLY AND PERMANENTLY DENIED ALL THE RELIGION-BASED PERQS THAT THEY GET IN A NATION LIKE OURS, THAT WOULD BE FAIR, AND MIGHT EVEN AFFECT HOW MEMBERS OF SUCH RELIGIONS COMPORT THEMSELVES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-isis-recruits-what-drove-them-to-join-terror-group-syria/
By HOLLY WILLIAMS CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 6:37 PM
"Poor and hungry": Ex-ISIS recruits on what drove them to join

AYN ISSA, Syria -- Eighty-one men and boys -- all accused of fighting for ISIS in Syria and now reformed after serving time in prison, according to America's Syrian allies -- have been reunited with their families.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his army of terrorists enforced a version of Islam unrecognizable to most Muslims, marked by vicious acts of violence.

williams-syria-split-frame-2134.jpg
Ezadeen Khalaf CBS NEWS

But Ezadeen Khalaf, a former shepherd, said he joined ISIS not because he wanted to kill in the name of his religion, but out of desperation.

"We were poor and hungry," Khalaf said. "Either you join ISIS and earn a salary or you have nothing."

He and most of the others have now signed up to fight against ISIS.

Thousands of other young Muslims joined ISIS for more complicated reasons. They came from Europe, rejecting the West and its values for extremism.

U.S. troops "just getting started good" in Raqqa

Some apparently were so alienated from their communities that they returned home to carry out terror attacks.

In a refugee camp in northern Syria, a group of Indonesian women told CBS News they were simply gullible, traveling 5,000 miles to the so-called Islamic State in 2015 because they believed ISIS propaganda.

ISIS leaves behind a deadly path of destruction in Syria
Play VIDEO
ISIS leaves behind a deadly path of destruction in Syria

"Best place in the world and the people in there very happy, no poor, no sad," one of the women said of what drew her.

In reality, they said they were abused and their menfolk imprisoned by the extremists because they refused to fight. They ran away two weeks ago, and are too frightened of retribution from ISIS to show their faces

"Not just naïve, we are stupid. We deceived very easily," another said.

ISIS tried to ignite a war between Islam and the West, and to do so it preyed on anger, poverty and ignorance.



IT IS CLEAR THAT, TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN JUST SIX MONTHS AGO, DONALD TRUMP IS UNDER REVIEW, AND HE SHOULD MIND HIS MANNERS. THE NON-VIOLENTLY INCLINED MEMBERS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS ARE GETTING IRRITATED WITH ALL THE BILGEWATER. I PRAY THAT THE POWERS FOR GOOD WILL HOLD STEADY AND BE STRONG. THE WAR HAS BEGUN. HOW APPROPRIATE THAT IN A FEW DAYS IT WILL BE JULY 4TH – A HOLIDAY THAT WE ALL, TO A MAN WOMAN AND CHILD, ENJOY WITH NATURAL PRIDE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-panel-approves-amendment-that-would-strip-trumps-war-authorization-powers/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 8:05 PM
Key House committee approves curbing Trump's war authorization powers

Photograph -- WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 28: US President Donald Trump speaks as he meets with immigration crime victims to urge passage of House legislation to save American lives, in the Cabinet Room at the White House on June 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. POOL / GETTY IMAGES

A key House committee on Thursday approved an amendment that could dramatically curb the president's ability to authorize military force without congressional approval.

The House Appropriations Committee voted to repeal the AUMF, or authorization of military force, which was set in motion after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks. To become law, it would need to pass the full House, Senate and be signed by President Trump.

The Bush-era AUMF granted the president broad powers to retaliate against anyone who contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and that authorization has provided the foundation for U.S. military intervention abroad ever since. It hasn't changed in more than 15 years.

The House panel on Thursday approved an amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) to sunset the AUMF as a part of the Department of Defense's budget for next year. If that amendment stays in the bill, and is approved by the House, Senate and signed by the president, it will drastically scale back Mr. Trump's ability -- and future presidents' ability -- to carry out military intervention without Congress' explicit OK. The committee's voice vote approving the amendment was nearly unanimous.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Rep. Barbara Lee ✔ @RepBarbaraLee
Whoa. My amdt to sunset 2001 AUMF was adopted in DOD Approps markup! GOP & Dems agree: a floor debate & vote on endless war is long overdue.
11:55 AM - 29 Jun 2017
5,575 5,575 Retweets 13,563 13,563 likes

The 2001 AUMF declares "the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Mr. Trump's administration has used those broad powers to do things like strike a Syrian airbase in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack believed to be perpetrated by Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad.

Behind the scenes of the U.S. Navy's Syria strike
Play VIDEO
Behind the scenes of the U.S. Navy's Syria strike

Lee's amendment -- something she has introduced every year -- would sunset the AUMF 240 days after the appropriations bill is signed into law, should the amendment stay in the bill. Congress would need new authorization to replace the AUMF, something it hasn't been able to pull off in the past.

The amendment is likely to face more of an uphill battle in future legislative battles, and backlash from the Trump administration, which is unlikely to welcome a move to curb the president's war powers.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has not yet said whether House leadership wants to keep the amendment in the bill when it comes up for a vote on the House floor.

CBS News' Walt Cronkite contributed to this report.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tweets-mika-brzezinski-washington-women-react/
By NANCY CORDES CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 7:16 PM
Trump's comments about women under scrutiny for second time this week

WASHINGTON -- President Trump's tweets about Mika Brzezinski mark the second time this week that the president's comments about women have come under scrutiny -- an issue that also dogged him during the campaign.

What drew scrutiny earlier this week wasn't an insult, but a compliment: "Caitriona Perry, she has a nice smile on her face, so I bet she treats you well," Mr. Trump said.

White House aides said the president was just being friendly to an Irish reporter.

Critics say he has a history of honing in on women's looks, such as when Megyn Kelly said to him, "you've called women you don't like 'fat pigs, dogs, slobs.'"

Trump's Twitter attack on "Morning Joe" hosts draws backlash
Play VIDEO
Trump's Twitter attack on "Morning Joe" hosts draws backlash

When Kelly asked him about it last year, candidate Trump trained his fire on her, saying, "there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

But now he inhabits the Oval Office.

A league of Democratic congresswomen on Thursday accused him of setting a bad example for young men.

"Stop the disrespect!" they said.

"This is not acceptable, Mr. President," said Michigan's Brenda Lawrence. "You do not have the right because you have a Twitter account to display behavior that I taught my son never to do. "

cordes-mika-tweet-reaction-2017-6-29.jpg
Michigan's Brenda Lawrence called on President Trump to "stop the disrespect" of women. CBS NEWS

They noted that Thursday's tweet is nothing new for a man with a history of crude comments -- such as when he said on "Access Hollywood, "You can grab 'em by the p****. You can do anything" -- and for a man who publicly mocked the appearance of both of his female opponents: First Carly Fiorina, then Hillary Clinton.

"When she walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn't impressed," Mr. Trump said about Clinton.

"When you become president of the United States, it's beneath your dignity to launch those kinds of attacks," said Maine Republican Susan Collins.

Collins has repeatedly implored her party's leader to tone down the rhetoric.

A number of female lawmakers have said that the president has a problem with sexism, but Collins say she has "not experienced that personally."

"What I think is the president has a problem with anyone who criticizes him or doesn't agree with him," Collins said.

Republicans have criticized the president's tweets many times before, but what was different on Thursday was their intensity, with many of them outright begging him to stop. But they're not optimistic he will listen because they realize some of these habits are ingrained.

The concern of people who want him to succeed is that his comments will hurt his political agenda. They fear that these comments further weaken his relationship with his own party's members and also reduce his influence over them on issues like health care. It also makes Republicans less likely to call on him as a messenger on these issues because they can never be quite sure about what he's going to say – and whether it's going to help or hurt their cause.



HERE IN NORTH FLORIDA WE HAVE HAD ALMOST A WHOLE MONTH OF AFTERNOON CLOUDS AND RAIN, WITH A SIDE DISH OF THRILLING LIGHTNING AND THUNDER. WE FLOOD NORMALLY WITH LESS WATER THAN THIS, MAINLY BECAUSE OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM DOESN’T WORK WELL. THIS PART OF THE SOUTH IS ALMOST TOTALLY FLAT, AND THERE’S NO DOWNHILL FOR THE WATER TO RUN TO! SO, IT JUST FILLS THE STREET FOR MAYBE 30 MINUTES AND THEN DRAINS OFF. I DID DRIVE THROUGH IT A FEW DAYS AGO, ABOUT 4 INCHES DEEP, WHICH IS A NO-NO, BUT I WENT VERY SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY – UNDER 5 MILES AN HOUR OR SO, AND THE CAR DIDN’T START TO FLOAT, AS I HAVE SEEN THEM DO ON TV.

I HATE TO ADMIT THIS, BUT I AM LOSING MY FEAR ABOUT THE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE, BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE THE FORM OF MORE, AND MORE ACTIVE, STORMS. OF COURSE, IN SOME PLACES IT’S DROUGHT INSTEAD, WHICH IS MORE OF A PROBLEM. CROPS WILL NOT GROW WITHOUT WATER AND PEOPLE HAVE TO DRINK IT AND BATHE ALSO. I THINK THE WORST EFFECTS WILL (I PRAY) TAKE SOME YEARS TO DEVELOP; OF COURSE, WHO KNOWS. FOR THESE EFFECTS THAT WE ARE ALREADY HAVING TO EVEN BEGIN TO APPEAR WAS NOT PREDICTED FOR THIS EARLY, AND IT HASN’T BEEN AS GRADUAL AS I EXPECTED, EITHER. I EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN SOME THIRTY YEARS HENCE, AND IT HAS BEEN MORE LIKE TEN. IT IS LIKELY TO BECOME BACK TO BACK HURRICANES, OR WORSE, MORE TORNADOES. THEN THERE IS THE PLIGHT OF TOTALLY INNOCENT ANIMALS SUCH AS, IN THE ARCTIC, THE POLAR BEAR, WHICH DEPEND ON ICE FOR THEIR SEAL HUNTING TECHNIQUE.

GIVEN THE POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL STANCE OF OUR RULING PARTY, THERE IS NO WAY TO REALLY STOP THIS, I’M AFRAID. I WILL JUST WATCH IT AND WAIL FROM TIME TO TIME. IF YOU HEAR THAT ON THE WIND, IT ISN’T THE SIRENS. IT’S JUST ME. I’M GLAD I KNEW THE EARTH WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER AND INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL. I HAVE MY MEMORIES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-changes-economic-impact-income-inequality/
By SHANIKA GUNARATNA CBS NEWS June 29, 2017, 7:49 PM
Here's where climate change will hit the U.S. the hardest

Photograph -- A vehicle drives through flooded streets caused by the combination of seasonal high tides and what many believe is the rising sea level due to climate change in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on September 30, 2015. JOE RAEDLE, GETTY IMAGES
35 Photos – go to website.

Communities across the U.S. should brace themselves for severe economic losses if climate change continues undeterred, according to a new analysis.

Every jump of 1 degree Celsius in temperature will cost the U.S. about 1.2 percent in gross domestic product, researchers said in a study that appears Friday in the journal Science. They also delivered a grim message: expect America's income inequality to get worse as the planet warms.

The researchers crunched numbers on how climate change will continue to impact the economy and society in a wide range of ways. They projected the impact on everything from agriculture yields and the labor supply to mortality rates and violent crime. They identified how different communities' energy expenditures will change, and mapped out the locations likely to take the greatest hit from coastal damage.

Most importantly, they broke their analysis down on a granular, county-by-county level, producing a vivid picture of which U.S. communities stand to lose the most as global warming accelerates.

In terms of overall economic losses, southern and midwestern communities are at the highest risk, in some extreme cases losing 20 percent of their local GDP by the end of the century:

climate-total-direct-damages.jpg
Here, researchers illustrate the median scenario for county-level annual damages due to climate change during the years 2080-2099. HSIANG, KOPP, JINA, RISING, ET AL. (SCIENCE, 2017)

Some northern and western communities may see slight economic gains over that time period, shifting the balance of economic power in the U.S, the researchers said. These communities may in fact see a boost in agriculture, thanks to milder northern winters, lower energy expenditure on home heating, and other factors. Still, these gains aren't enough to compensate for the negative trend nationwide.

Counties along the Atlantic coast are expected to suffer major losses as hurricanes intensify and sea levels rise, redrawing the maps of coastal areas.

stormsurge-miami-fl.jpg
A map illustrating areas of Miami, Florida, projected to be inundated by 1-in-100 year floods under median sea level rise, accounting for forecast changes in tropical cyclone activity. HSIANG, KOPP, JINA, RISING, ET AL. (SCIENCE, 2017)

The U.S. appears particularly vulnerable to sea level rise in the next century, according to research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. The latest study mapped out the areas of several major coastal cities, like Miami, seen here, which are most likely to be inundated by floods under median sea level rise in the coming decades.

Climate change and income inequality

According to the researchers, climate change is poised to disproportionately affect areas that already suffer from poverty, exacerbating America's economic inequality. By the late 21st century, the poorest third of U.S. counties are expected to experience losses between 2 and 20 percent of county income, according to the study.

"We've shown which U.S. regional economies are particularly vulnerable, which will help policymakers," co-author Solomon Hsiang, of the University of California, Berkeley, and the National Bureau of Economic Research, said in a statement. "If we are going to adapt, we need to know where to focus."

The data analysis comes from the Climate Impact Lab, a consortium of climate researchers from UC Berkeley, Rutgers, University of Chicago, and other institutions. The group also released an interactive tool for the public to engage with the data and explore the impact on different communities. To make their projections, the researchers assumed a "business as usual" framework for the next few decades — meaning, they assumed the U.S. would continue its heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

The recent shift in federal policy supports that assumption. President Trump has promised to end the supposed "war on coal" and pulled out of the Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. and more than 190 other nations to reducing carbon emissions. Under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency has moved into a new chapter of deregulation on industry.

Climate change and health

Continued climate change, by stretching natural resources to the breaking point and normalizing extreme weather events, is also expected to cause a worsening of physical and mental health problems.

Previous medical research has linked climate change to an increase in infectious diseases and conditions like heart and lung conditions associated with air pollution and wildfires.

The new study projects an increase in mortality rates resulting from climate change in southern and midwestern states and much of California over the rest of this century.

climate-mortality-map.jpg
Here, researchers illustrate the median scenario for county-level annual changes in all-cause mortality rates, across all age groups, due to climate change during the years 2080-2099. The southern U.S. is expected to be hit the hardest. HSIANG, KOPP, JINA, RISING, ET AL. (SCIENCE, 2017)

In 2013, researchers from Princeton University and the University of California-Berkeley found that even slight spikes in temperature and precipitation have increased the risk of personal violence and social upheaval throughout human history.

Extreme weather events are also known to trigger mental health problems including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and substance abuse.



TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO WATCH THIS RACHEL MADDOW VIDEO ON THE SUBJECT OF TRUMP’S LITERALLY DISMANTLING THE EPA AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES THAT WE, WHEN I WAS YOUNG, FOUGHT FOR SO HARD. THIS IS THE TRUMP EFFECT. IT’S LIKE A SNOWFLAKE ON THE HOOD OF A CAR THAT HAS BEEN DRIVEN 30 MILES. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL IS GONE. HOW COULD ONE MAN DO SO MUCH DAMAGE SO FAST?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
HELP THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 6/28/17
Scientist says EPA asked her to change testimony to Congress
Deborah Swackhamer, chair of the E.P.A.’s Board of Scientific Counselors, talks with Rachel Maddow about the pressure she received from an EPA official to change her congressional testimony and how the EPA's outside scientific review board has been "decimated." Duration: 6:22