December 26, 2017


News and Views


EVEN THOUGH I ASSUME SOME HYPERBOLE HERE, I DON’T LIKE THE USE OF THE WORD “PURGE” IN RELATION TO PEOPLE OR BASIC AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS. WHERE IS THE CALMNESS AND REASON HERE? DOES THIS MAN EVEN REALIZE WHAT HE IS SAYING? AND ALL THAT STUFF ABOUT THE “DEEP STATE” IS SEEMINGLY BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY. PARANOIA IS BEING TAKEN FOR REALITY.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-lawmaker-wants-to-purge-fbi-and-justice-dept/ar-BBHo5tN?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
GOP Lawmaker Wants To 'Purge' FBI And Justice Dept.
December 26, 6:07 PM 1 hr ago
Ryan Sit

© Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call UNITED STATES - APRIL 25: Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., speaks with Roll Call in his Capitol Hill office on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.

A Republican lawmaker called on the heads of the FBI and Department of Justice on Tuesday to "purge" its "deep state" personnel.

Florida Representative Francis Rooney bemoaned the FBI's Trump-Russia probe during an interview with MSNBC's Hallie Jackson, saying, "That investigation is totally off the rails," and called on the justice department to clean house.

"I'm very concerned that the DOJ and FBI, whether you want to call it 'deep state' or what, are kind of off the rails," he said.

Rooney cited the recent revelation that one of the FBI's top investigators, Peter Strzok, had sent anti-Trump text messages, to bolster his argument. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading up the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, removed Strzok in July immediately after learning about the texts.

Rooney also mentioned a former associate deputy attorney general, Bruce Ohr, who was demoted at the justice department after it was revealed he had undisclosed meetings with officials from Fusion GPS, the company that commissioned the controversial Trump dossier that the national intelligence agencies have not fully corroborated. The lawmaker also brought up money FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's wife received while running for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015. Trump tweeted in July that Jill McCabe had gotten $700,000 from Clinton, though Politifact deemed that claim "mostly false."

RELATED: TRUMP AND RUSSIA: ROBERT MUELLER'S CAMPAIGN INVESTIGATION COULD LAST ANOTHER YEAR OR MORE, REPORT SAYS

MSNBC's Jackson pressed Rooney on his criticisms of the FBI and Department of Justice.

"How does that not, sort of, undermine the work that these agencies are doing?" she asked.

"Those aforementioned examples are really nerve-wracking to me and undermine my confidence that the agencies don't respect the Constitution," He said, adding, "People need a good clean government."

Jackson pushed back again. "There are those who look at comments like that ones that you're making and say that Republicans are working to essentially try to discredit the Department of Justice and thus discredit the investigations. Is that not what you're doing?"

"I don't want to discredit them," Rooney answered. "I would like to see the directors of those agencies purge it and say, 'look, we've got a lot of great agents, a lot of great lawyers here,' those are the people that I want the American people to see and know the good works being done, not these people who are kind of the deep state*."

Rooney's comments come after Trump renewed his attacks against McCabe and the FBI over the holiday weekend. Trump critics say the spate of attacks on the bureau and justice department are a tactic to erode public trust in the agencies' credibility.

McCabe is expected to retire in the next few months, according to the Washington Post.


WHEN AND HOW WILL THE TRUMP/RUSSIA INVESTIGATION END? NOT BEFORE IT IS FULLY SOLVED, IN MY VIEW, OR WE MAY SUFFER TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES. I DO CONSIDER THE LOSS OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM A TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCE. I DON’T CONSIDER IT TO BE MERELY POLITICS AS USUAL. I AM PROUD OF MUELLER’S PERSISTENT AND BRAVE EFFORTS TO PROVE WHAT CAN BE PROVEN AND JUDGE WHAT MUST BE JUDGED. I WOULDN’T MIND SEEING ROBERT MUELLER RUN FOR PRESIDENT, THOUGH HE IS A REPUBLICAN.

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-another-year-752316
Trump and Russia: Robert Mueller's Campaign Investigation Could Last Another Year or More, Report Says
By Ryan Sit On 12/19/17 at 10:14 AM

© Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call UNITED STATES - APRIL 25: Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., speaks with Roll Call in his Capitol Hill office on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's suspected Russia ties won't be ending any time soon—it's reportedly set to drag on for another year or longer.

People familiar with the investigation say the Mueller team's work "could last at least another year," according to The Washington Post, in spite of the president's pressure for the probe to end.

The White House legal team is expected to meet with Mueller’s office later this week and ask if there’s anything else the special counsel needs from them. Mueller’s response could escalate the tensions between the two camps. Trump has been attacking the inquiry for months, calling it a baseless and partisan "witch hunt" intent on destroying his presidency. His anger has led to running speculation about Mueller getting fired, though Trump said this week that he's not planning on it.

Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election may not be over for "at least" another year.
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Trump's lawyers repeatedly assured him that the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election would end by Thanksgiving, with attorney Ty Cobb saying in August he would be "embarrassed" if it lasted that long. Cobb added that he at least hoped the probe wouldn't be "haunting" Trump by the end of the year.

But that was before Mueller hit Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former adviser Rick Gates with a 12-count indictment in October alleging their role in international money-laundering schemes. That was also before it was publicly known that the campaign’s foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and had been cooperating with Mueller’s team since July.

Earlier this month, Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about Russian contacts, and he appears to cooperating with the investigation as well.

Trump’s attorneys have repeatedly pledged the White House’s full cooperation with Mueller’s investigation, but one of the lawyers criticized the special counsel’s office on Saturday over a trove of emails it obtained.

Mueller’s team now has thousands of emails sent between Trump officials during the presidential transition from November 2016 to January 2017. Trump attorney Kory Langhofer claimed Mueller improperly obtained the emails, which contained information that is potentially subject to restrictions like attorney-client privilege.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller’s office, took the unusual step of publicly addressing Langhofer’s statement on Sunday. “When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner’s consent or appropriate criminal process," Carr said in an email to Newsweek and other news outlets.

Mueller's office declined to comment on how long the investigation will last.


LAWLESS FOR DECADES – SOUNDS RIGHT TO ME.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/20/republican-attacks-on-robert-mueller-are-absurd-but-the-gop-has-been-lawless-for-decades/
REPUBLICAN ATTACKS ON ROBERT MUELLER ARE ABSURD. BUT THE GOP HAS BEEN LAWLESS FOR DECADES.
Jon Schwarz
December 20 2017, 2:12 p.m.

WASHINGTON IS ALL abuzz with rumors about the fate of Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to examine “any links and/or coordination” between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

According to some reporting, Donald Trump’s allies believe he will have a “meltdown” and try to fire Mueller if the special counsel does not quickly wrap up the investigation and exonerate the president. (It wouldn’t be a simple procedure for Trump to get rid of Mueller, but if he’s determined to do so, he almost certainly can.) Meanwhile, elected Republicans and conservative news outlets are obsessively attacking Mueller in a clear bid to lay the groundwork for Trump to pardon any of his subordinates convicted on charges growing out of the Russia probe.

But one thing’s for sure: If Trump does take some kind of outrageous action against Mueller, the Republican Party will mumble, look down at its shoes, and then do nothing whatsoever. Earlier this year there was momentum among a small number of GOP lawmakers to join with Democrats to pass legislation protecting Mueller, but that’s quietly petered out. There may be some opposition from some Republicans, but the odds of it being enough to stop Trump are quite low.

If this occurs it should come as no surprise to anyone. It’s simply the logical endpoint of decades of effort by the Republican Party and its media penumbra to shield the GOP from the rule of law or any small-D democratic norms. Today’s GOP sees any and all rules just as billionaire New York real estate developer Leona Helmsley saw taxes – they’re only for “the little people.”

There’s always been a significant faction of the U.S. right, rooted mostly in large corporations, that’s similar to the right in Latin America, in that it genuinely sees democracy as illegitimate. The success of Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 1930s was a gigantic shock to their system, and there were two small scale efforts by Wall Street and big business to overthrow Roosevelt via military coup. Meanwhile, John Foster Dulles, a powerful corporate lawyer who later became secretary of state during the Eisenhower administration, told his clients facing new government restrictions: “Do not comply. Resist the law with all your might, and soon everything will be all right.”

Dulles was wrong. From the viewpoint of conservatives, things did not get “all right” anytime soon. The New Deal was such a stunning political success that, starting with Roosevelt’s election in 1932, Democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives for 58 of the next 62 years until 1994. Democrats controlled the more-aristocratic Senate almost as firmly during the same period, for 52 years, and even managed to gain the presidency for a majority of that time. They provided an imperfect but real check on the right’s dream of rolling back the 20th century and returning the U.S. to the late 1800s.

But Dulles and company handed their commitment to massive resistance down to their ideological descendants. And soon enough it erupted spectacularly during the presidency of Richard Nixon.

There was an enormous amount of liberal self-congratulation after the Watergate investigation and Nixon’s resignation. The system worked! But that was true only in the sense that the system worked when Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. And even that comparison isn’t quite accurate: Americans, at least, were aware of Capone’s bigger crimes.

By contrast, Nixon’s most monstrous misconduct remains largely unknown, even today. It’s now proven that during the 1968 campaign he directly ordered his underlings to collude with a foreign power – South Vietnam – to prevent a peace deal that could have ended the Vietnam War. His motive was the most craven imaginable: He was worried that peace might help his opponent, Hubert Humphrey. Instead, Nixon won the presidency and in 1973 signed a treaty on essentially the same terms available five years earlier. Tens of thousands of Americans, as well as hundreds of thousands of people across Indochina, died thanks to what can without hyperbole be called treason by Nixon.

(Original Caption) 4/30/1970-Washington, DC-In a TV speech to the nation from the White House, President Nixon announced that several thousand American ground troops have entered Cambodia to wipe out Communist headquarters for all military operations against South Vietnam. The president is shown here pointing to a map of Cambodia.
In a TV speech to the nation from the White House in Washington, President Nixon announced that several thousand American ground troops have entered Cambodia to wipe out Communist headquarters for all military operations against South Vietnam on April 30, 1970. Photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Then there’s Nixon’s “secret” bombing of Cambodia, during which the U.S. dropped 2.7 million tons of explosives – more than had been used by the Allies during all of World War II – on one of the poorest countries on earth. This was a blatant violation of the U.N. Charter and hence of the U.S. Constitution, yet the House Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment condemning it. This left the Nixon administration’s preposterous legal justification available for the Obama administration to cite over 40 years later as vindication for drone strikes in countries with which the U.S. is not at war.

Instead Nixon was nailed for quite real fraud, bribery and obstruction of justice. But the committee’s Bill of Particulars, which describes Nixon soliciting campaign contributions from McDonald’s in return for letting them raise the price of a quarter pounder cheeseburger, does make it all seem, in the scheme of things, like small potatoes.

While the Watergate investigation has been portrayed as a proud moment of bipartisan commitment to America’s glorious ideals, this is nearly the opposite of the truth. Nixon would unquestionably have evaded punishment if Republicans rather than Democrats had controlled Congress.

Even with Democrats in charge, the first congressional attempt to look into it, led by populist Rep. Wright Patman, was effectively killed by Gerald Ford, who at the time was the House Republican leader. (While Ford claimed he was only doing this because of a belief in good governance, he almost certainly was acting on Nixon’s orders.)

Then there’s Howard Baker, the top Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee. Baker has long been celebrated for asking, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” But Baker was actually asking that in an attempt to protect Nixon, and secretly met with Nixon to provide him with intelligence about the committee’s activities. The glowing reviews for Fred Thompson, then the committee’s minority counsel and later a GOP senator from Tennessee, are also a myth.

Meanwhile, Republicans engaged in their now-familiar cut-and-paste attacks on the press. Nixon’s press secretary declared in 1972 that “I use the term shoddy journalism, shabby journalism, and I’ve used the term character assassination. … This is a political effort by the Washington Post, well-conceived and coordinated, to discredit this administration.” The purported coordination, of course, was supposedly with George McGovern, Nixon’s opponent that year.

In the end, only a third of the 17 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted for the three successful articles of impeachment. And even they largely did not do so out of any kind of high-mindedness. Rather, by 1974 the economy had collapsed — characters in the movie “Network,” made during this period, repeatedly refer to “the depression” — taking Nixon’s popularity with it.

So with a slightly different roll of history’s dice, Nixon might have skated. But he didn’t. At that point Republicans could have taken one of two lessons from the experience: either “Don’t commit impeachable offenses” or “Build walls to protect yourself when you commit impeachable offenses … and get revenge.” They went with door number two.

IT WAS DURING the Nixon administration that Roger Ailes developed what he called “A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News.” Eventually this would become Fox News, and give Ailes the power to generate a self-contained alternate reality for the Republican grassroots. The right’s other area of vulnerability was the courts, which had repeatedly ruled against Nixon. The so-called “Powell memo,” which laid down the blueprint for the right’s counteroffensive of the last 40 years, emphasized that “the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.” Ever since, the right has made an enormous investment in shaping the Supreme Court as well as lower courts, in particular the critical U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

At the same time, the Democratic Party was undergoing a peculiar cultural shift that’s led them to celebrate losing honorably for the good of the country. This was in fact the exact language of Clark Clifford, one of the “wise men” surrounding Lyndon Johnson when his administration discovered Nixon’s appalling Vietnam chicanery just before the 1968 election. Clifford successfully argued to Johnson that “some elements of the story are so shocking in their nature that I’m wondering whether it would be good for the country to disclose the story … It could cast [Nixon’s] whole administration under such doubts that I would think it would be inimical to our country’s interests.” Top Democrats, including Johnson, Clifford, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and National Security Adviser Walt Rostow generously took Nixon’s secret with them to their graves.

The same perspective caused Democrats to meekly accept a new status quo when it came to special counsels. Incredibly enough, there hasn’t been a significant investigation headed by a special counsel who’s a Democrat since Nixon fired Archibald Cox in 1973. Democrats have internalized a heads-you-win-tails-I-lose belief that an investigation of a Republican administration can’t be handled by a Democrat, whereas one investigating a Democratic administration must be conducted by a Republican. The same goes for the head of the FBI: Every single one in the bureau’s history, including three appointed by Democratic presidents, has been a Republican.

For their part, the elite print and broadcast media accepted the right’s critique that they were – as huge profit-driven corporations naturally tend to be – horribly liberal. This made them uncomfortable with their own power, and they decided not to use it against Republicans. Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post during Watergate, explained in his autobiography that he “began to feel subconsciously that what the world did not need right away was another investigation that might again threaten the foundations of democracy. What the newspaper did not need right away was another fight to the finish with another president — especially a Republican president. [emphasis in original]”

This dynamic — an aggressive GOP versus a Democratic Party and media both terrified of getting two for flinching – has only accelerated since.

UNITED STATES - JULY 08: Lt. Col. Oliver North is sworn in at the Iran-Contra hearings. (Photo by NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images)
Lt. Col. Oliver North is sworn in at the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings. Photo: NY Daily News Archive/Getty Images
During the Iran-Contra affair of the mid-1980s, Ronald Reagan almost certainly committed impeachable offenses. Specifically, he had, in violation of the Arms Control Act, approved the sale of weapons to Iran in 1985. After the story broke, the independent counsel named to investigate it was Lawrence Walsh, a stalwart Republican who’d previously been appointed to various high-level positions during the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations.

It didn’t matter. As it became clear that Reagan was vulnerable, and his underlings had engaged in a massive cover up to protect him, Walsh was ferociously attacked by his own party. The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times denounced him, as did members of the mainstream media anxious to demonstrate that they’d turned over a new, less-liberal leaf.

By the end of 1992, Walsh had discovered that Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, had likely committed his own impeachable crimes while concealing his role in the scandal. But Bush, on his way out the door after losing to Bill Clinton, pardoned six convicted or indicted Iran-Contra defendants. “George Bush’s misuse of the pardon power,” Walsh later wrote, “made the cover up complete.”

But if Republicans were certain that Republican presidents were innocent, they knew that Clinton, as a Democrat, was inherently guilty. All they needed to do was figure out exactly why.

The New York Times got the ball rolling with its preposterous coverage of the Whitewater scandal – which did indeed involve minor crimes, but none committed by Bill or Hillary Clinton. Republicans seized upon Whitewater to demand an independent counsel.

Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, chose Robert Fiske, a Republican who’d been appointed U.S. District Attorney by Gerald Ford. Unfortunately, Fiske failed to produce the right results: The Clintons had not improperly tried to influence bank regulators in Arkansas, nor had they murdered White House counsel Vince Foster. The Wall Street Journal decried “The Fiske Cover Up.”

There was only one solution: another, more disciplined Republican independent counsel. Two GOP-appointed judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia replaced Fiske with Kenneth Starr. Starr produced results after a mere four years, having somehow expanded the Whitewater investigation to cover Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s impeachment was overseen by Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, an enthusiastic adulterer and child molester, respectively. (The Whitewater probe was eventually wrapped up in 2003, nine years after it started, by a third Republican counsel, Robert Ray.)

Next up was the 2000 election. It’s been totally forgotten now, but in the week before the vote, the George W. Bush campaign became worried Bush might win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. They therefore laid plans to grab the presidency with national demonstrations demanding that Al Gore bow to the clearly expressed will of the people.

Gore was even preemptively condemned for his selfishness. Ray LaHood, a Republican member of the House from Illinois, declared that it “would be an outrage” if Gore assumed office under such circumstances. Chris Matthews also felt strongly, saying that “knowing him as we do, [Gore] may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush.”

Of course, exactly the opposite happened. Bush officially won Florida and the electoral college when the Supreme Court halted the Florida recount in a 5-4 decision. The five members of the majority were all chosen by Republican presidents, while two of the dissenters were GOP appointees and two had been picked by Clinton. Gore immediately and obediently conceded.

A full examination published in November 2001 found that under every possible standard Gore would have won Florida if all the votes had been counted. The Washington Post published a story about this on page A10.

By then Matthews and LaHood had both long lost interest in this subject. Matthews, who said that he’d voted for Bush, became a star on the liberal MSNBC. Nine years afterward in 2009, President Obama named LaHood secretary of transportation.

Within a few years, Bush was embroiled in the Valerie Plame affair. Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by James Comey, then-deputy attorney general, to investigate. While Comey was a Republican, Fitzgerald, in a scandalous anomaly, was not. He wasn’t a Democrat, of course; he was just an independent.

He was also loudly slurred as unconscionably biased.

Bill Kristol, a top neoconservative, pronounced that “the whole prosecution is absurd” because Fitzpatrick “is now out to discredit the Bush administration.” William Safire called him “a runaway Chicago prosecutor,” while CNN’s Lou Dobbs said Fitzgerald was engaging in “an onerous, disgusting abuse of government power.” Four months after Bush administration official Scooter Libby was convicted of multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, Bush commuted his sentence.

THAT BRINGS US to today and the Mueller investigation, with the GOP exploring new frontiers of rhetoric. It goes without saying that Mueller, a Republican appointed by a Republican deputy attorney general who in turn was appointed by a Republican president, is running an investigation that’s incredibly unfair to Republicans. Fox’s Jesse Watters has been making the case that it is in fact “a coup” aiming to destroy Trump “for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters.” For her part, Fox’s Jeanine Pirro believes that “the only thing that remains is whether we have the fortitude to not just fire these people immediately, but to take them out in cuffs.” Trump himself has referred to the FBI, one of the most notoriously conservative government agencies, as constituting a “rigged system” — rigged against him – whose “reputation is in Tatters.”

So, it’s almost impossible to imagine Trump being forced to pay any price by fellow Republicans. The GOP has spent 43 years constructing an enormous network of well-funded, committed defenders in Congress, the courts and the media. This in turn has allowed them to live in a mental universe in which they cannot do wrong, and therefore any attempts to impose restrictions on them are morally outrageous. The system is now working at full throttle. As Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan and H.W. Bush staffer, and current GOP heretic, forlornly says, if Watergate happened today, “Nixon would have finished his term.”

Top photo: Marine Lt. Oliver North is broadcast during his testimony before the House and Senate Iran-Contra hearing on a bank of televisions as Jim Marlowe, a sales consultant at Fretter Appliance in Roseville, Mich., eats his lunch on July 8, 1987.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us
CONTACT THE AUTHOR:
Jon Schwarz
jon.schwarz@theintercept.com
@Schwarz



..........***********.......


THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ODD STORIES THAT MAKE VERY LITTLE SENSE TO ME. IS THE AIRLINE AFRAID OF BEING SUED BY THE CONGRESSWOMAN, OR BY THE PASSENGER? WHO CALLED IN THE PRESS TO COVER THIS STORY AND WHY? I DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE THAT JACKSON LEE ASKED FOR SOMEONE (THIS HAPLESS LADY) TO BE BUMPED SO SHE COULD GET A BETTER SEAT. I REALLY DON’T THINK SO, BUT IT HAS BEEN AN AIRLINE PRACTICE FOR YEARS FOR AN AIRLINE TO “BUMP” ANOTHER LESS POWERFUL PERSON IN THIS WAY; OR AT LEAST THERE HAVE BEEN CLAIMS TO THAT EFFECT. OF COURSE, THERE ARE PLAUSIBLE LOOKING PEOPLE BEING USED AS A DECOY TO LURE AN UNSUSPECTING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE INTO A COMPROMISING POSITION.

I SEE IT ALL THE TIME ON PERRY MASON AND IN SPY NOVELS. USUALLY THAT TAKES THE FORM OF THE OLD LOVE NEST PHOTOGRAPHER WHO POPS INTO THE ROOM WHEN HE HEARS CLEAR SIGNS OF A LITTLE HANKY-PANKY GOING ON. HE, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN HIRED BY THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE OR BY A WIFE WHO WANTS A DIVORCE.

THIS STORY IS THE KIND OF THING THAT, FAR FROM SATISFYING MY CURIOSITY, JUST MAKES ME HUNGRY FOR MUCH MORE INFORMATION, AND MY LONG YEARS OF READING FICTION SUPPLIES ME WITH SCENARIOS. WHATEVER IS GOING ON, THOUGH, IT LOOKS LIKE AN UNTRUTH HAS BEEN SPOKEN BY SOMEONE. I HOPE THERE WILL BE ANOTHER STORY SOON, AND THAT JACKSON LEE WILL NOT BE SMEARED. SHE’S A GOOD DEMOCRAT, OR SO I THOUGHT.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-airlines-apologizes-to-passenger-who-says-u-s-rep-got-her-seat/
AP December 26, 2017, 9:06 AM
United Airlines apologizes to passenger who says U.S. Rep got her seat

Photograph -- PHILADELPHIA, PA - JULY 27: U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) delivers remarks on the third day of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center, July 27, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ALEX WONG / GETTY IMAGES

United Airlines has apologized and given a $500 travel voucher to a passenger who accused the airline of giving her first-class seat to U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat.

An airline spokeswoman said Monday that its internal systems show the passenger, Jean-Marie Simon, canceled her Dec. 18 seat from Houston to Washington, D.C. after a weather delay.

Simon denies that she canceled the flight. She was given a seat in Economy Plus on the flight, and told the Houston Chronicle she saw Jackson Lee sitting in the seat that was assigned to her.

United says it upgraded Jackson Lee automatically and not because she was a member of Congress. The congresswoman says in a statement that she didn't ask for anything "exceptional or out of the ordinary."

© 2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


NEW AND DIFFERENT INFO FROM THE ROOT –

https://www.theroot.com/can-i-get-a-window-seat-united-passenger-big-mad-over-1821580014
Can I Get a Window Seat? United Passenger Big Mad Over Losing 1st-Class Seat to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
by Anne Branigin
December 26, 2017

Photograph -- Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee became the subject of one United Airlines passenger’s ire after the customer alleged that the Texas Democrat had been assigned a first-class seat that was originally hers.

Jean-Marie Simon, a 63-year-old attorney and private school teacher, according to the Houston Chronicle, said that she booked a first-class seat Dec. 3 for the last leg of her travel from Guatemala to Washington, D.C.

However, she said that when she arrived at the gate at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston on Dec. 18, she was told by a flight attendant that her ticket wasn’t in the system—and that her first-class window seat (1A) had been given away.

United Airlines says its records show that Simon had canceled the trip on the United Airlines app—a claim the passenger denies. But Simon did make it onto the flight—reseated in the economy-plus section and given a $500 voucher to boot.

Still, Simon wasn’t ready to let it go.

According to the Chronicle, Simon said “she saw Jackson Lee board the plane with a flight attendant before all of the other passengers, but did not know who she was until another passenger told her after they were seated.”

Simon then assumed some sort of privilege was at play, and during a pre-takeoff delay, she made it to the front of the plane and snapped a photo of the Houston representative, who was now seated in “her” seat.

“Simon said she went to the front and snapped a photo of Jackson Lee and told a flight attendant that she knew why she’d been bumped,” the Chronicle reports.

Jackson Lee has responded to the allegations that she got preferential treatment, and says that something very different was at play from what Simon is owning up to.

First, Jackson Lee says she overheard Simon’s conversation with the flight attendant—who is black—and saw the passenger snap her photo.

“Since this was not any fault of mine, the way the individual continued to act appeared to be, upon reflection, because I was an African-American woman, seemingly an easy target along with the African-American flight attendant who was very, very nice,” Jackson Lee said in a statement.

“This saddens me, especially at this time of year given all of the things we have to work on to help people,” she continued. “But in the spirit of this season and out of the sincerity of my heart, if it is perceived that I had anything to do with this, I am kind enough to simply say ‘Sorry.’”

Jackson Lee emphasized that she “asked for nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary and received nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary” on her flight from Houston to Washington, D.C., which United confirmed.

Simon, meanwhile, claimed that Jackson Lee’s race had nothing to do with her furor over her seat. “I had no idea who was in my seat when I complained at the gate that my seat had been given to someone else,” she told the Chronicle. “There is no way you can see who is in a seat from inside the terminal.”

That didn’t stop her from taking a photo of Jackson Lee and assuming preferential treatment rather than, say, an error in the app or an accidental cancellation.

Instead, Simon is digging in her heels, demanding a formal, written apology from United.

“It’s just impossible to suspend disbelief and swallow that story that I canceled my flight,” Simon said.


UNITED CLAIMS THAT THEY APOLOGIZED, TEACHER SAYS THAT THEY DIDN’T.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/12/26/united-claims-apology-given-passenger-rudely-booted-sheila-jackson-lee-teacher-begs-differ-579961
United claims apology was given to passenger rudely booted for Sheila Jackson Lee, teacher begs to differ
December 26, 2017 | Tom Tillison |

In a tale of two sides, United Airlines said an apology had been issued to the woman who said her first class seat was given to Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

The woman, Jean-Marie Simon, says no such apology was made.

An airline spokesman said United not only apologized, but gave the unhappy traveler a $500 voucher, the New York Post reported.

Conservative News @BIZPACReview
Teacher describes rude bump from 1st class for Sheila Jackson Lee. Naturally, the Congresswoman calls her a racist. http://dlvr.it/Q7dSp6
4:48 AM - Dec 26, 2017

Simon, a 63-year-old attorney and private school teacher, disputes the claim, telling The Post via email, “United has not apologized to me.”

“A low ranking employee responding to an online customer complaint apologized on the phone, in his individual capacity,” she continued. “He also said he would send my complaint up the chain at United. To date, I have not heard from United.”

But then, Simon also disputed the airline’s explanation that the Democratic lawmaker ending up with the preferred seat, 1A, after Simon cancelled her flight — Jackson Lee, who played the race card, was said to be the first passenger on standby for an upgrade.

Jean-Marie Simon @JeanMarieSimon1
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) in seat 1A the one I paid for dearly, and the one United gave to her without my consent or knowledge! Fellow congressman on same flight said she does it repeatedly. @united
7:37 AM - Dec 23, 2017

As for the voucher, Simon said that was given to her on Dec. 18, when the incident took place.

“This was far from an apology,” Simon insisted. “The gate agent who issued it told me to either ‘Take it and get on the plane or find another flight somewhere else.’”

Simon has been very vocal about her experience and said on Twitter that United first offered a $300 voucher, which she refused.

Simon tweeted Sunday: “I’ve seen people get twice that for voluntarily giving up seat on overbooked flights. When I asked for free meal/bev., gate agent said, ‘And I want a Mercedes Benz, but I’m not going to get it.’”

Jean-Marie Simon @JeanMarieSimon1
Gate agent wanted originally to give me $300. I've seen people get twice that for voluntarily giving up seat on overbooked flights. When I asked for free meal/bev., gate agent said, "And I want a Mercedes Benz, but I'm not going to get it." https://twitter.com/JeanMarieSimon1/status/944907955807440897 …
8:45 AM - Dec 24, 2017

Even then, the educator Simon said she got the voucher by “insisting.”

“United threatened to remove me from plane for taking photo,” she tweeted. “United manager called me @ home: said United behavior at gate/on plane contra [sic] United training. Said taking photos is legal, andaid [sic] United will investigate to c who did this to me.”


THIS PROBABLY WON’T REALLY BE “THE END,” BUT IT’S THE LAST ARTICLE I COULD FIND.

* * * *


A 12 YEAR-OLD CREATES AN EXCELLENT PROCESS TO SOLVE THE LEAD PROBLEM. I HAVE TO ASK. IF SHE CAN DO THIS, WHY DIDN’T SOME BRILLIANT SCIENTIST DO IT BEFORE? THE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING HER AS SHE GROWS UP, I ASSUME. IF SO, I HOPE SHE CAN INCORPORATE CONSTANT SCRUTINY INTO HER WORLD VIEW AND REMAIN A HAPPY YOUNG WOMAN. I DON’T LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE THOSE KING MIDAS CHOICES BETWEEN GREAT WORLDLY GOODS AND THE INNER HUMAN NEEDS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gitanjali-rao-12-year-old-girl-troubled-by-flint-water-crisis-invents-lead-detector/
By ADRIANA DIAZ CBS NEWS December 25, 2017, 7:32 PM
12-year-old Colorado girl, troubled by Flint water crisis more than 1,000 miles away, invents lead detector

LONE TREE, Colo. -- Outside denver, a talented 12-year-old is getting national attention. It's not for her music, it's for Gitanjali Rao's contribution to science.

"If my mom asked me what do you want for Christmas, I'd be like, lead," Gitanjali said.

Doctors explain the long-term health effects of Flint water crisis
That's right, lead, which Gitanjali needed for an invention.

"Imaging living day in and day out drinking contaminated water with dangerous substances like lead. Introducing tethys, the easy to use, fast, accurate, portable and inexpensive device to detect lead in water," Gitanjali said in her presentation for the Young Scientist Challenge. She won the national competition for her invention.

diaz-young-scientist-2017-12-25.jpg
Gitanjali Rao won the Young Scientist Competition for a lead detector. CBS NEWS
It was inspired by a real-world problem. "I've been following the Flint water crisis for about two years," Gitanjali said.

In Flint, Michigan, nearly 100,000 residents drank lead contaminated water for more than a year.

"Lead is mostly harmful to younger children, about my age -- giving them growth defects and potententially damaging their brain," Gitanjali said.

diaz-young-scientist-2-2017-12-25.jpg
Inspired by the Flint water crisis, Gitanjali Rao invented a lead detector. CBS NEWS
Gitanjali said that despite living in thousands of miles away from Flint, "that's not something I want to go through, what the Flint residents went through .. our water quality's just as important as doctor's appointments or dentist's appointments."

If you've never tested your water, Gitanjali said "that's a big problem!"

With Gitanjali's device, instead of taking days to send water samples to a lab, her device detects lead in seconds using carbon molecules -- and a mobile app.

diaz-young-scientist-4-2017-12-25.jpg
Tethys, Gitanjali Rao's lead detector. CBS NEWS
She's one of many who love science at school, but one of the few who turned an idea into an invention, said teacher Simi Basu.

"I am so confident that she will be able to take it to the market if we keep providing her help," Basu said. She said what makes Gitanjali different is that she is a "risk taker -- she's not afraid to fail."

She said her next project is to create a "happiness meter which measures the amount of serotonin in your body or the amount of gamma rays and I still have to figure out how this works."

When she does, the science world will be waiting.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


SHARING IS NOT A HUMAN TRAIT WITHOUT CONSTANT FIGHTS, ANY MORE THAN IT IS WITH WOLVES. THERE WAS A GREAT DOCUMENTARY ON WOLF BEHAVIOR, AS OBSERVED IN AN ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENT HOUSING A WOLF PACK. THE WOLVES WERE TAME ENOUGH TO ALLOW A SCIENTIST TO DRAG A QUARTER OF A COW OR SO INTO THE ENCLOSURE, AND THE CAMERAS FILMED THE RESULTS. THE RULE IS THAT THE STRONGEST GETS THE MOST MEAT. SOUNDS FAMILIAR, SOMEHOW .... INTERESTINGLY, THOUGH, THERE WERE ALWAYS A FEW PIECES LEFT FOR THE LEAST SENIOR MEMBERS TO GNAW ON.

THE WAY THEY DECIDE ISSUES OF SHARING THOSE HIGHLY PRIZED “SCARCE RESOURCES” IS VERY MUCH LIKE OURS. THE “ALPHA WOLF” START CHEWING ON THE PART OF THE DEER OR WHATEVER IT IS, THAT IS NEAREST TO HIM, AND GROWLS IN A MOST FEARSOME MANNER THE WHOLE TIME, GLANCING BALEFULLY UP AT THE WOLVES ACROSS FROM HIM. THEN AFTER A FEW MINUTES, ANOTHER SECOND IN STATUS WILL CREEP UP, BEAR HIS TEETH AND GLARE AT THE ALPHA AND PROCEED TO EAT. THE ALPHA AT A CERTAIN POINT WILL DECIDE HE HAS HAD ENOUGH AND GO LIE IN THE SHADE OF A TREE TO DIGEST HIS MEAL. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND US IS THE FACT THAT WOLVES WILL RARELY KILL EACH OTHER IN A FIGHT, EVEN OVER SEX. HUMANS, MALE CATS, PIT BULLS AND FIGHTING COCKS ALL WILL KILL, OF COURSE.

THE SKIRMISHES IN THIS NEWS ARTICLE REMIND ME OF THE WOLVES. THEY FIGHT UNTIL SOMEBODY GIVES UP AND RETREATS. IF HE DECIDES TO COME BACK AGAIN, HE WILL HAVE A LOWER STATUS. HE WILL GET LESS FOOD AND BECOME WHAT WE CALL THE SCAPEGOAT. HE THEREFORE IS REMOVED FROM THE SHARING COMMUNITY FOR THE MOST PART. THE EURO NATIONS HAVE NEGOTIATED RULES, AND ARE ABIDING BY THEM, AS FAR AS I KNOW. IT WAS DONE BY THIS MEANS: SO FAR, WHILE THE EUROPEAN FISHERMEN HAVE CONCEDED A LITTLE TERRITORY EACH, SO THAT THE NEEDS OF THE GROUP HAVE BEEN MET, THERE ARE “RESTRICTIONS.” IN ALL PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS THERE WILL BE RESTRICTIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR AMERICAN FISHERFOLK ARE NOT YET WILLING TO DO THINGS THAT WAY.

I DON’T WANT HUMANS, THE EVER SO CLEVER AND HIGHLY ETHICAL SPECIES, TO ALLOW OUR MEMBERS TO BE KILLED OR DRIVEN OUT RATHER THAN SHARING THE GOOD AND THE BAD. THE GOOD MEANS FOOD TO EAT, ETC., AND THE BAD MEANS GOING TO WAR IF NECESSARY. SOME HARDCORE “CONSERVATIVES” SEEM TO WANT EXACTLY THAT. HUMANS SHOULD BE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO RATION AND ABIDE BY THAT SYSTEM, IN MY VIEW, AND WHEN THE SUPPLY IS ENDANGERED, FIND THE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS AND SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. THAT WOULD KEEP THE PEACE; BUT NO. WE BEAT OUR NEAREST NEIGHBORS OVER THE HEAD AND DRIVE THEM OFF UNLESS THEY ARE TOO STRONG, AND IF SO WE MUST RUN AS REFUGEES TO ANOTHER PLACE. DOES EVERYTHING ALWAYS HAVE TO END THIS WAY?

WE ARE IN A TIME WHEN WE REALLY MUST WORK TO ACHIEVE A SHARED SPACE, NOT MERELY ON LAND, BUT ON THE OCEAN. THESE FISHERMEN ARE COMPLAINING BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO CAREFULLY WEND THEIR WAY BETWEEN THE TURBINES OR GO ALL THE WAY AROUND. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, HOW SHIPS CAN NAVIGATE AROUND AND BETWEEN THE TURBINES, WHILE AVOIDING DAMAGE TO THE BOAT ON CERTAIN CONCRETE UNDERWATER CABLE COVERS, MANAGE TO DO REGULAR UPKEEP ON THE LIGHTS ON TURBINE PLATFORMS WHICH ARE USED AS GUIDES, “THE MOST PERSISTENT PROBLEMS” WITH THE OCEAN CURRENTS DISTURBING AND EXPOSING THE BURIED POWER CABLES. THAT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A REAL DANGER. ELECTRICITY CAN BECOME DANGEROUS IN THAT SITUATION.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS MAKE SENSE TO ME. THEY ARE PRACTICAL, BUT THIS REPETITIVE COMPLAINT ABOUT “RESTRICTIONS” IS A REPUBLICAN MANTRA, A POWER GRAB IN MY VIEW, AND ONE THAT IS MAINLY VOICED BY BIG BUSINESS. INSTEAD OF ARGUING OVER WHETHER TO DEVELOP THE OBVIOUSLY USEFUL NON-CARBON ENERGY SOURCES, WE NEED TO DISCUSS HOW TO DO IT. IF WE WOULD STOP THE CONFLICT, WE WOULD HAVE A “WIN WIN” SITUATION. AT A CERTAIN POINT WE NEED TO STOP DISCUSSING AND MOVE FORWARD. THERE IS AN OLD SOUTHERN PHRASE FOR THAT: “FISH OR CUT BAIT!” IT SEEMS TO ME, JUDGING FROM THIS ARTICLE, THAT EUROPE IS WELL AHEAD OF US ON THE MATTER. I RECOMMEND THAT WE IN AMERICA SHOULD STUDY EUROPEAN WAYS IN ORDER TO LEARN HOW THEY HAVE DONE IT, AND PROCEED TO DOING THE SAME HELPFUL THINGS. WE CAN PUT OUR OWN CREATIVE TOUCHES ON IT, OF COURSE.

IT IS UNAVOIDABLE THAT THERE WILL BE ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE SHARING OF NECESSARY RESOURCES, AND THAT MEANS BOTH PLANNING, PRODUCING MORE TO BE SHARED, AND ABIDING BY REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS. THEY ARE NECESSARY IN THE SHARING PROCESS. WE’VE TRADITIONALLY BEEN OPERATING UNDER THE “GRAB AND GROWL” PHILOSOPHY, AND WE NEED TO MATURE AND EVOLVE BEYOND THAT.

YOU WILL NOTICE THAT I USED THE WORD “NECESSARY” RESOURCES, AS OPPOSED TO “SCARCE” RESOURCES, THE REPUBLICAN TERM. THAT IS USED TO DECIDE HOW MUCH MONEY MAY BE MADE ON THE PRODUCTS, AND ONLY RARELY DISCUSSES HOW MORE EFFICIENT USE MIGHT HELP ALL THE PEOPLE TO BE FED AND WARMED – I.E., SHARING. THESE FISHERMEN, OF THE LARGE COMMERCIAL VENTURES AT ANY RATE, SEEM NOT TO WANT TO DO THAT AT ALL. IN GOING FOR WEALTH ABOVE EVERY OTHER CONCERN SOLUTION, WE TEND TO DEPLETE THE WHOLE SUPPLY FOR ALL, WHILE SOME DIE OF STARVATION. THAT’S NOT ONLY NOT INTELLIGENT, IT’S NOT NICE EITHER. WE ARE RIGHT NOW “EATING OUR SEED CORN,” WHICH IS INSANE. IF WE WILL SUBMIT TO SHARED LAWS OF USAGE, WE CAN HAVE OUR SHARE OF WATERWAYS AND OR FISHING IF WE WILL ABIDE BY LOGICAL RULES, AND CLEAN ENERGY, ALSO.

AT A CERTAIN POINT THERE WILL BE AN END TO THE SUPPLY ITSELF. THE LONGER WE KEEP PUMPING OUT THAT CO2, THE SOONER WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE INLAND OR BUILD DESALINIZATION PLANTS AT EVERY AVAILABLE POINT ON OUR COASTS. THE FIRST THING THAT I FEAR, AND I HAVE SEEN IT ALREADY, IS OUR RUNNING OUT OF POTABLE WATER. THE SECOND IS THAT OUR PREVIOUSLY BOUNTIFUL SUPPLY OF FISH FROM THE OCEAN WILL DIMINISH AND THEN DISAPPEAR. WE ARE REACHING THAT POINT NOW IN MANY OF THE LIFEFORMS THAT REMAIN IN THE OCEAN, AND WE ARE STILL OVERFISHING TO THE POINT OF EXTINCTION.

CERTAIN SPECIES THAT DON’T REALLY HAVE TO BE KILLED FOR FOOD IN TODAY’S MARKETPLACE AT ALL, SUCH AS WHALES AND SHARKS, ARE NEARING THAT POINT. TO ME, THAT’S IN THE CATEGORY OF A SIN AND NOT A RIGHT. BECAUSE CERTAIN CULTURES HAVE THE SLAUGHTER OF WHALES AS A PART OF THEIR SOCIETAL AND RITUAL SELF-IMAGE, AND ARE WILLING TO DESTROY THE LAST ONE TO PLEASE THEMSELVES IN THAT WAY, OUR OCEAN IS BEING DEPOPULATED POINTLESSLY. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE SEASONAL TRADITIONAL SLAUGHTER BY SOME JAPANESE GROUPS AND ALASKAN NATIVES OF WHALES. CULTURALLY, WE NEED TO REMOVE OUR FOCUS FROM DESIRABLES AND PUT IT ON NECESSITIES. TO FOLLOW A TRADITION MAY BE DESIRABLE, BUT IT IS BY NO MEANS NECESSARY.

SO, HERE WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE WATER SOURCES FROM DRYING UP BY SLOWING GLOBAL WARMING, BUT WE CAN’T ALLOW WIND TURBINES, WHICH ARE A CLEAN ENERGY SOURCE, TO BE PLACED IN OUR OFF SHORE WATERS. THAT’S MAINLY BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO ACCEPT ANY RULES. WE NEED A CHANGE OF COURSE WITH THIS “SHIP OF STATE.” HOW ABOUT NEW LEADERSHIP, NOW?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-fishermen-worry-about-wind-turbines/
AP December 26, 2017, 8:30 AM
U.S. fishermen feel a chill from wind turbines

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. - East Coast fishermen are turning a wary eye toward an emerging upstart: the offshore wind industry.

In New Bedford, Massachusetts, the onetime whaling capital made famous in Herman Melville's "Moby-Dick," fishermen dread the possibility of navigating a forest of turbines as they make their way to the fishing grounds that have made it the nation's most lucrative fishing port for 17 years running.

The state envisions hundreds of wind turbines spinning off the city's shores in about a decade, enough to power more than 1 million homes.

"You ever see a radar picture of a wind farm? It's just one big blob, basically," said Eric Hansen, 56, a New Bedford scallop boat owner whose family has been in the business for generations. "Transit through it will be next to impossible, especially in heavy wind and fog."

Off New York's Long Island, an organization representing East Coast scallopers has sued the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to try to halt a proposal for a nearly 200-turbine wind farm. Commercial fishermen in Maryland's Ocean City and North Carolina's Outer Banks have also sounded the alarm about losing access to fishing grounds.

Supporters of offshore wind say they have learned from Europe's long experience with it. They also point to the more recent opening of America's lone offshore wind farm, off Rhode Island, as evidence the actual impact to U.S. fishermen will be less than feared.

"We want to do this the right way, and I believe we have a path to do that," said Matthew Morrissey, a vice president at Deepwater Wind, the Rhode Island company that opened that five-turbine operation off Block Island last December and is proposing larger farms elsewhere along the East Coast.

In New Bedford, where the state has already built a $113 million heavy-duty terminal to take on turbine construction and shipment, city officials envision commercial fishing and offshore wind working hand in hand to revive a region that has long lagged behind nearby Boston.

"There's a lot more in common between these industries than pulling them apart," said Edward Anthes-Washburn, executive director of New Bedford's port, citing the potential for wind farms to provide fishermen with extra work and to contribute to port investments, like a new shipyard.

For fishermen, the broader concern is that offshore wind farms will only lead to more stifling restrictions.

"Fishermen are losing ground one a nibble at a time," said Joseph Gilbert, a Stonington, Connecticut fisherman who owns boats that range from Virginia to Maine. "Eventually, it adds up to a very large piece of the pie."

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees wind farm developments in federal waters, has taken steps to address fishermen's concerns, among them excluding specific habitats off Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York from wind farm development, said spokesman Stephen Boutwell.

It has also invested in studies looking specifically at questions raised by fishermen, from the effects of pile-driving during wind farm construction to the effect of electromagnetic fields on fish behavior, he said.

Deepwater Wind, meanwhile, said preliminary findings from environmental studies of its Block Island wind farm suggest fish and lobster populations are "just as strong" as before construction.

The company says it has compensated over a dozen fishermen who temporarily lost access to their fishing grounds during construction.

But while there haven't been reports of fishing boats striking the turbines, about a dozen boats have reported trawls getting damaged by concrete structures covering undersea power cables, costing tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and lost fishing time, said Richard Fuka, president of the Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance.

U.S. fishermen also cast a worried glance at to Europe, where a range of restrictions have been imposed on fishing around the more than 3,500 turbines spinning off the shores of 10 different countries. U.S. officials and developers stress similar bans aren't being considered stateside, except during construction.

Studies in the North Sea suggest the turbines act as reefs, supporting mussels that draw fish and other sea life. But where advocates see biodiversity, commercial fishermen point to other studies noting modest effects on native species in Europe.

In the U.K., navigation through wind farms remains challenging during bad weather, said Merlin Jackson, treasurer of the Thanet Fishermen's Association.

There have been at least two minor cases of fishing boats hitting turbines, he said. Fishermen largely rely on turbine platform lights as guides, but they're not always well maintained. The most persistent problem has been sea currents exposing buried power cables, prompting restrictions while they're repaired, he said.

America's slower, more complex licensing process has "forced more questions to be asked," and East Coast fishermen seem more unified than many of those in Europe when wind farms were being developed, Jackson said.

"If fishermen can be organized and be allowed to have input into the earliest parts of the planning process," Jackson said, "then there should be a way forward."

© 2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



FOR REASONS LIKE THIS I TEND TO WONDER WHETHER CLOSED ADOPTIONS ARE REALLY A GOOD IDEA. INCEST DOESN’T ALWAYS HAPPEN PURPOSELY. REMEMBER OEDIPUS REX? PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THEIR RELATIVES, AT LEAST BY NAME.

THERE ARE ISOLATED RURAL COMMUNITIES IN MY HOME STATE WITH VERY SMALL POPULATIONS, WHOSE CITIZENS HAVE LIVED THERE FOR GENERATIONS, EVEN BACK TO THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR PERIOD. THE LIKELIHOOD OF SOME OVERLY CLOSE GENETIC MIXING IS PRESENT THERE. WHEN MY OLDEST SISTER GOT MARRIED, AND AGAIN WHEN I DID, MY PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS SAT US ALL DOWN ON THE FRONT PORCH AND “COUNTED KIN.” BELIEVE IT OR NOT THEY FOUND SOME LINKS, TOO.

THAT’S WHERE THE TERM “KISSIN’ COUSINS” COMES FROM – IF THE LINK IS FAR ENOUGH APART, THEY CAN MARRY. FIRST COUSINS IN NORTH CAROLINA CAN’T MARRY, BUT SECOND COUSINS CAN – MOST WOULDN’T I DON’T THINK, THOUGH.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/best-friends-for-60-years-discover-they-are-brothers/
CBS NEWS December 26, 2017, 10:44 AM
Best friends for 60 years discover they are brothers

Photograph -- Two men who have been best friends for six decades recently discovered they are brothers. CBS NEWS

HONOLULU -- Two men in Hawaii who have been best friends for 60 years just found out they are brothers, CBS Philly reports.

Walter Macfarlane never knew his father, and Alan Robinson was adopted.

Curiosity about their family lineage led them to Ancestry's website.

Both men discovered they shared the same birth mother.

The two revealed the discovery to friends and family on Christmas Eve.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



SOME PEOPLE DO GET OVERLY INVOLVED EMOTIONALLY ABOUT POLITICAL MATTERS. THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE CASES. IT IS INFECTIOUSLY FUNNY, HOWEVER, AND THE ORIGINATOR OF THE “PRANK” IS CLEARLY PROUD OF IT. HE SAID THAT HE PROBABLY WON’T GET INTO TOO MUCH TROUBLE BECAUSE HIS WIFE IS A LAWYER, AND HE IS A PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST. HE PROBABLY ISN’T TOO FRIGHTENED ABOUT BOMBS IN HIS CAR, OR SUCH THINGS. PERSONALLY, I THINK HE’S RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE TOO MANY PEOPLE AMONG THE LESS THAN UBERWEALTHY CLASSES WHO WILL BE LAUGHING FOR WEEKS ABOUT THIS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robert-strong-horse-manure-delivery-steven-mnuchin-prank/
CBS NEWS December 26, 2017, 11:56 AM
Man behind horse manure delivery for Steven Mnuchin says he's proud of his prank


LOS ANGELES -- A clinical psychologist who made headlines for sending a gift-wrapped box containing horse manure to the Bel Air home of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says he's proud of his prank. CBS Los Angeles reports the incident caused the LAPD's bomb squad to shut down the residential street, and it warranted a surprise visit from the Secret Service.

"One thing leads to another. You're having a couple of drinks and you're like 'let's do this,'" Dr. Robert Strong said.

Strong, who works with the County of Los Angeles Department of Mental Health, explained that it was intended as a gesture of protest against the GOP's $1.5 trillion tax overhaul, which was signed into law by President Trump on Friday. Strong said he agrees with critics who believe the policy favors the rich at the expense of the poor and working class.

"I was talking to a friend about the tax bill and we were both complaining about how it's total horse s***," Strong said. "And one of our friends who happens to be there owns horses."

According to CBS Los Angeles, Strong went to a horse ranch in Sylmar, packed up some horse manure and dropped it off at the address in Bel Air.

horse-manure-prank.jpg
Clinical psychologist Dr. Robert Strong says the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul motivated him to carry out the prank. CBS LOS ANGELES

"Wrapped it up Christmas-style. Wanted it to be nice and festive," he said.

On the envelope, Strong wrote: "Dear Mr. Mnuchin & Trump, we, the American people, are returning the 'gift' of the Christmas tax bill. Because it's complete and utter horses***."

The box ended up in front of Mnuchin's neighbor's home and prompted a security scare until officials determined the suspicious package did not pose a threat. CBS Los Angeles reports Mnuchin was not in L.A. at the time.

Strong said he received death threats after he identified himself as the perpetrator of the prank.

"My wife's a lawyer," Strong said. "I'm not too worried."

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



"THEN WHILE BRITTANY WAS GETTING HER SOLO SHOTS TAKEN I REALIZED ONLY TWO WERE STANDING ON THE ROCK LEDGE."

REMEMBER THAT HEROIC AND FUNNY SCENE IN THE MOVIE OF PRIDE AND PREJUDICE YEARS AGO WHEN MR. DARCY, THE UPTIGHT MR. DARCY, JUMPED IN THE FAMILY POND FOR A SWIM WITH HALF OF HIS CLOTHES ON. NO BARE CHEST THERE, BUT THAT WAS VERY SEXY NONETHELESS. THIS STORY IS ALMOST THE SAME SCENE.

IF YOU FEEL LIKE SPENDING SOME TIME, WATCH THIS 1995 VERSION OF PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. THIS IS THE ONE I’M THINKING OF. HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=J6BZ0XIVGOM.

IN THIS REAL-LIFE NEWS STORY, THE GROOM DASHES AWAY FROM THE WEDDING PHOTO SHOOT AND LEAPS IN THE WATER AFTER THE OVERLY ADVENTUROUS CHILD. THE SCENE WITH HIM HOLDING A SMALL BLACK BOY UP BY ONE ARM, WITH A SMILE ON HIS FACE, IS VERY APPEALING. AS THE BRIDE SAID, “HE’S MY HERO.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hero-groom-jumps-in-river-on-his-wedding-day-to-save-drowning-boy/
By JENNIFER EARL CBS NEWS September 26, 2017, 2:08 PM
Hero groom jumps in river on his wedding day to save little boy from drowning

Photograph -- Clayton Cook rescues an unidentified boy from the water in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, on his wedding day. HATT PHOTOGRAPHY
Clayton and Brittany Cook. HATT PHOTOGRAPHY
Click here to view related media.
Hatt Photography, about 3 months ago -- A special shout out to last night's groom Clayton! While I was taking solo pictures of the bride this little guy was pushed into the river behind me by another child. By the time the bride noticed and shouted out, Clayton had already jumped down and brought him to safety. His quick action saved the little guy who was struggling to swim. Well done sir!

When Clayton Cook jumped off a park bridge and into the water while posing for wedding photos, his bride, Brittany, thought he was playing a prank on her.

Seconds later, she realized it wasn't a prank at all.

"Grab my hand, grab my hand!" Cook yelled as he popped up from the water.

screen-shot-2017-09-26-at-1-01-32-pm.png
Clayton and Brittany Cook. HATT PHOTOGRAPHY

Several feet below, Brittany saw a little boy struggling to keep his head above water. Her new husband was swimming toward the child, reaching for his wrist.

"I kind of plucked him out, and he was OK," Cook told BBC News.

The couple from Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, said three children had been following them around, cheering and pointing at their wedding outfits.

"For several minutes these kids were following us, and I was just keeping an eye on them because they were standing close to the water," Cook said. "Then while Brittany was getting her solo shots taken I realized only two were standing on the rock ledge."

That's when Cook bolted from the photo shoot and ran toward the scene.

"I saw the boy in the water struggling to keep his head up," he explained. "That's when I jumped down."

Click here to view related media.

Wedding photographer Darren Hatt captured the incredible moment on camera. His images have been shared nearly 2,000 times since they were posted Saturday afternoon.

"As soon as I could turn around he had already plunked him on the ground outside the river," Hatt told BBC News. "So I just kept on capturing the story of the day, including this."

People online have been praising the groom's quick response since the photos surfaced.

"Wow! What a hero! Such a selfless thing to do...so lucky that he just happened to be there," one Facebook user commented.

"God bless you and your new wife. You did a great thing for that little boy," another replied. "You impacted his life in ways you will never know, but who knows, maybe you will know someday."

Brittany said she wasn't surprised by her husband's selfless act. It's just one of the many reasons she fell in love with him.

"In our wedding speeches, I did mention how he'd do anything for anybody before they even thought to ask him and how loyal he was," Brittany said. "So, yeah, I guess I could say he's [my hero]."

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.