June 26, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right-for-gay-couples/

Supreme Court: Marriage is a fundamental right for gay couples
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
June 26, 2015


Play VIDEO -- Same-sex marriage arguments to be heard at Supreme Court Tuesday

In a historic development for gay rights and the institution of marriage, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry.

Specifically, the 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges declares that the 14th Amendment requires all states to perform same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death," the ruling continues. "It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

The ruling extends marriage rights to gay couples in the 14 remaining states where same-sex marriage was previously prohibited. It also validates lower-court rulings in 20 states where marriage bans were struck down by federal judges.

Who is helped by the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare subsidies?
The recent series of court rulings striking down marriage bans, culminating with this Supreme Court ruling, reflects a growing national acceptance of same-sex marriage. A February CBS News poll showed that 60 percent of Americans said it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry. More than half, 56 percent, said same-sex marriage should be left up to the states, though support for that position dropped eight points from a year earlier.

By protecting same-sex marriage nationally, the court is ensuring that same-sex couples are entitled to same state benefits that all married couples receive, in every state. In the Obergefell v. Hodges case, plaintiff Jim Obergefell was specifically seeking the right to be listed on his husband's death certificate. Obergefell and his longtime partner John Arthur were legally married in Maryland in 2013, when Arthur was terminally ill. However, since their home state of Ohio did not recognize same-sex marriages, the state refused Obergefell's request to be listed on Arthur's death certificate.

When CBS News' Jan Crawford asked Obergefell earlier this year what Arthur would think of the ongoing legal battle, Obergefell said, "I think -- I know -- he's proud. I know he would thank me for living up to my promises to him, for living up to my marriage vows to fight for him, to love him, to honor him and to protect him."

Each of the four justices in the minority -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- wrote their own dissenting opinion.

"The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage," Roberts wrote in his dissent. "And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational."

The chief justice ended his dissent by telling those in support of same-sex marriage, "by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

NOTE: SEE THIS WEBSITE FOR THE COMPLETE 30 SOMETHING PAGED TEXT OF THE RULING.




"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death," the ruling continues. "It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

This statement by Justice Kennedy is profound and beautiful. In traditional societies young people have been matched up by their elders, usually based on an exchange of wealth or property and often on a political alliance. Even Queen Elizabeth II probably wouldn’t have been encouraged or even allowed to marry someone who wasn’t of equal social and political status. As a result, most of those royal marriages even today contain lots of shared genes due to first cousin marriages, and that isn’t really a good thing medically.

In recent centuries young people have increasingly picked their own partners, and usually because of a very powerful personal commitment of a sexual nature to their partner. I must consider that a superior reason for forming a marriage. Having to marry and perform sexual interactions with someone to whom we are not sexually attracted seems to me a profound violation of an individual’s inner soul a very much like rape. That was the worst problem between Prince Charles and Lady Diana – Charles was emotionally and sexually committed to another woman who had been considered socially inferior to him, so a marriage between them was not allowed.

We have entered a time period of personal “fulfillment,” which may not even be culturally acceptable, but it is clearly a universal principle. Folk stories from all around the world bear this out, as lovers run away from their parents’ home so that they can be together. “Love” has been around as long as people have, after all. See the Wikipedia articles on some very surprising marriages that are legal and societally recognized even today.

A quick quotation from the article “Types of marriages” states “The type, functions, and characteristics of marriage vary from culture to culture, and can change over time. In general there are two types: civil marriage and religious marriage, and typically marriages employ a combination of both (religious marriages must often be licensed and recognized by the state, and conversely civil marriages, while not sanctioned under religious law, are nevertheless respected). Marriages between people of differing religions are called interfaith marriages, while marital conversion, a more controversial concept than interfaith marriage, refers to the religious conversion of one partner to the other's religion for sake of satisfying a religious requirement. …. Polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) occurs very rarely in a few isolated tribal societies. These societies include some bands of the Canadian Inuit,[citation needed] although the practice has declined sharply in the 20th century due to their conversion from tribal religion to Christianity by Moravian missionaries. Additionally, the Spartans were notable for practicing polyandry.[1] …. Societies which permit group marriage are extremely rare, but have existed in Utopian societies such as the Oneida Community.[citation needed]

Today, many married people practice various forms of consensual nonmonogamy, including polyamory and Swinging. These people have agreements with their spouses that permit other intimate relationships or sexual partners. Therefore, the concept of marriage need not necessarily hinge on sexual or emotional monogamy.”

In case you wonder about the “normality” of other marriage forms, the incidence of them is pretty convincing to me. One of the most interesting anthropology courses I took at UNC was about up close studies of some half a dozen tribal societies which existed at least into the 1900s, and it included a wide number of surprising aspects which were traditional in those areas and very much considered to be “normal.”

Marriage between two people of the same sex certainly isn’t recognized in many places, but my personal experience in my young years has taught me that trying to make a relationship with a man who is “a confirmed bachelor,” a passive individual, gay or “a commitment phobe” is very unlikely to work out positively and in a sexually satisfying manner. Many of those men are in fact, gay or bisexual after all even though they are afraid of saying so and with good reason. They could be beaten up or even killed because of that. Men and women were highly encouraged to marry a person of the opposite sex and produce children for appearances, but when I was young there were lots of couples who simply “had no children” and lots of men and women who opted out entirely, staying home with their parents and helping out around the house. Wonder why?

In my case, it simply was not possible for me to marry “my best friend” or “a good man” and be satisfied with that. Unfortunately for me, the men I was most attracted to were definitely more into “fighting than fleeing,” and as a result we argued a lot and had conflicts, which obviously makes the up close infighting of the relationship impossible to tolerate for more than a few years. Likewise, I wasn’t one of those women who were docile and would even consider being “obedient.” I “loved” the assertive men and the mutual sexual attraction made me want to have their baby. Personally if a marriage can’t be like that I don’t want to be married, and I’m not. I’ve been divorced twice and have no children. I have had a personally satisfying inner life, however, and have had that fulfilling sexual relationship that I craved. That is enough for me. I have been happy.

As for a mandate to conjoin two expensive properties or rear a dozen children, I wouldn’t willingly do either of those two things without love. I am clearly a romantic, and a “natural woman” in the words of Carol King, which was also sung by Aretha Franklin -- who can out-sing anybody else in my opinion. I am so glad that song came out when I was a vibrantly alive young woman. It put me on a path going away from mental slavery to society’s rules, and made me fully glad that I was alive.

I am glad to see our Supreme Court has voted to allow gay marriages, as a human right. US society has moved further toward individuation as I have grown older, and to me that is what “the pursuit of happiness” means. What else could it mean?





http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/26/417727757/abide-by-the-law-campaign-trail-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-ruling

'Abide By The Law': Campaign Trail Responds To Same-Sex-Marriage Ruling
Amita Kelly
June 26, 2015

After the Supreme Court's decision to effectively legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide came down at 10 a.m. ET, the 2016 hopefuls weighed in quickly.

The Republican side of the field has opposed same-sex marriage, but in responding to Friday's decision, most of the candidates struck a measured tone — many noting they support traditional marriage and religious freedom and disagree with the court, but also stressed the importance of respect and tolerance for all Americans.

Marco Rubio said while he disagrees with the court's decision, "we live in a republic and must abide by the law." Jeb Bush sent a statement saying while he disagrees, "I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments."

Lindsey Graham said that as president he would "staunchly defend religious liberty" but that "while we have differences, it is time for us to move forward together respectfully and as one people."

For others like Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, the tone was not so measured. "This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians," Jindal said.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, who supports same-sex marriage, tweeted that she was "Proud to celebrate a historic victory for marriage equality—& the courage & determination of LGBT Americans who made it possible." Her campaign quickly changed her "H" logo on social media sites to a rainbow-colored one, and sent out rainbow graphics of the word "History."

Here is how the candidates have responded (with updates as we hear more):

Jeb Bush:

"Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."
Ben Carson:

"While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land.
I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.
I support same sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form."
Lindsey Graham:

"I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court's decision. Furthermore, given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress. Rather than pursing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans. No person of faith should ever be forced by the federal government to take action that goes against his or her conscience or the tenets of their religion. As president, I would staunchly defend religious liberty in this nation and would devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights. While we have differences, it is time for us to move forward together respectfully and as one people."

Carly Fiorina:

"Moving forward, however, all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today's decision.
The Court did not and could not end this debate today. Let us continue to show tolerance for those whose opinions and sincerely held beliefs differ from our own. We must lead by example, finding a way to respect one another and to celebrate a culture that protects religious freedom while promoting equality under the law."
Mike Huckabee:

"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

Bobby Jindal:

"The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.
This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.
The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America's long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.
I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me."
Marco Rubio:

"While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. ...
I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court's decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other."
Rick Santorum:

"As President, I will be committed to using the bully pulpit of the White House to lead a national discussion on the importance to our economy and our culture of mothers and fathers entering into healthy marriages so that every child is given their birthright- to be raised by their mother and father in a stable, loving home. I will stand for the preservation of religious liberty and conscience, to believe what you are called to believe free from persecution. And I will ensure that the people will have a voice in decisions that impact the rock upon which our civilization is built."
Hillary Clinton:

"From Stonewall to the Supreme Court, the courage and determination of the LGBT community has changed hearts and changed laws.
This ruling is an affirmation of the commitment of couples across the country who love one another. ...
So while we celebrate the progress won today, we must stand firm in our conviction to keep moving forward. For too many LGBT Americans who are subjected to discriminatory laws, true equality is still just out of reach. While we celebrate today, our work won't be finished until every American can not only marry, but live, work, pray, learn and raise a family free from discrimination and prejudice. We cannot settle for anything less."

Bernie Sanders:

"Today the Supreme Court fulfilled the words engraved upon its building: 'Equal justice under law.' This decision is a victory for same-sex couples across our country as well as all those seeking to live in a nation where every citizen is afforded equal rights. For far too long our justice system has marginalized the gay community and I am very glad the Court has finally caught up to the American people."




“The Republican side of the field has opposed same-sex marriage, but in responding to Friday's decision, most of the candidates struck a measured tone — many noting they support traditional marriage and religious freedom and disagree with the court, but also stressed the importance of respect and tolerance for all Americans.” I’ve presented the words of each candidate above without any commentary. Each has his own view and the respectful attention to each is what I hope this article will bring. It is very interesting to me and heartening to see how a group of different candidates bow to the will of the Supreme Court in something that they may well be firmly biased against from a religious viewpoint. That is encouraging to me because this nation was set up not as a “Christian nation,” as several have said since the influx of the Tea Party, but a secular nation which welcomes or at least allows almost all types of religion including Paganism and Mormonism. This, to me, is one of the most important of our guaranteed freedoms. We all came here as little groups, partly to gain a better economic footing, but very often to escape religious persecution in Europe and other places. The Protestants and the Catholics spent 500 or so years or so in Europe fighting religious wars. Many people were executed because of their beliefs, not to mention those who were burned as witches. We should spend no more time doing that kind of thing – religion is supposed to bring peace and love, not viciousness and war!!




http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/25/417586527/univision-cuts-ties-with-trump-after-comments-about-immigrants

Univision Cuts Ties With Trump After Comments About Immigrants
Greg Allen
June 25, 2015

Photograph -- Donald Trump is just a week into his presidential bid, and he is in hot water over comments he made about a key voting bloc, Latinos. Jim Cole/AP

Following comments Donald Trump made about Mexican immigrants during his presidential announcement last week, Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language TV network, has announced it is cutting ties with Trump and dropping plans to broadcast the Miss Universe Pageant.

Trump, the businessman and now-presidential candidate, co-owns the pageant.

"When do we beat Mexico at the border?" Trump said during his lengthy presidential announcement speech at Trump Tower in New York. "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Trump's main theme was that the country is in serious trouble. He talked about the need for America to begin beating China in trade and Japan in manufacturing.

But it was Trump's comments about immigrants from Mexico that have earned him the anger of many Hispanics.

"I was listening to it in the car on the way to work, and by the time I got to the office, everybody was talking about it," said Roberto Orci of Acento Advertising, a Hispanic agency in Los Angeles.

Trump's comments are just the type the Republican Party has been looking to avoid. The Republican National Committee underwent serious self-reflection following President Obama's re-election, initiating an "autopsy" of what went wrong. It determined it had to reach out to minorities to strike a more inclusive tone.

After Trump's speech, Sean Spicer, the RNC's chief strategist, said on CNN that Trump's "broad brush" on Mexican Americans is "not helpful to the cause."

Trump didn't limit himself to insulting Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans. Later in the speech, he blasted immigrants coming from "all over South and Latin America."

"With one short speech about us," Orci said, "he tarred the entire Latino culture as being rapists and murderers and terrorists."

In the days following the speech, Hispanic leaders and commentators excoriated Trump. Jorge Ramos, Univision's news anchor, said Trump had become "the Hispanic community's most hated man."

Now, Univision has backed up Ramos' comments with action. The network announced it is ending its relationship with Trump and the Miss Universe Pageant, which he co-owns. It is an announcement that likely comes with a cost. Univision just signed a five-year deal with the pageant in January. The Los Angeles Times reports Univision has already paid $2.5 million for this year's pageant rights — rights the company now says it will not exercise.

With his comments, Trump has alienated a key part of the pageant's core audience. Viewership for the Miss Universe Pageant has declined steeply in recent years among every demographic group except one — Hispanics.

Carlos Santiago advises companies on how best to reach the growing Hispanic market. He said Trump's comments have hurt the pageant's connection to Latinos.

"Donald Trump himself has been extremely marketing-oriented and growing brands," Santiago said. "So, he must know the value that the pageant and the Miss Universe brand has among Hispanics."

Trump said he plans to sue Univision for breach of contract. And today, he blamed Univision's actions on the Mexican government. He claimed Mexico was putting pressure on the network because of his opposition to trade deals with that country.

Miss Universe is scheduled for January. But the Miss USA Pageant, a Miss Universe preliminary, is set for next month. Following Univision's decision, the pageant hasn't just lost a broadcaster; two of the event's hosts said they were also dropping out.

The controversy seems unlikely to fade, especially now that Trump is an official candidate for president. With his high name recognition, he places highly in many polls and is likely to be included in the first two Republican presidential debates scheduled for August.




"When do we beat Mexico at the border?" Trump said during his lengthy presidential announcement speech at Trump Tower in New York. "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." …. "I was listening to it in the car on the way to work, and by the time I got to the office, everybody was talking about it," said Roberto Orci of Acento Advertising, a Hispanic agency in Los Angeles. Trump's comments are just the type the Republican Party has been looking to avoid. The Republican National Committee underwent serious self-reflection following President Obama's re-election, initiating an "autopsy" of what went wrong. It determined it had to reach out to minorities to strike a more inclusive tone. …. Trump didn't limit himself to insulting Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans. Later in the speech, he blasted immigrants coming from "all over South and Latin America." "With one short speech about us," Orci said, "he tarred the entire Latino culture as being rapists and murderers and terrorists." In the days following the speech, Hispanic leaders and commentators excoriated Trump. Jorge Ramos, Univision's news anchor, said Trump had become "the Hispanic community's most hated man." …. With his comments, Trump has alienated a key part of the pageant's core audience. Viewership for the Miss Universe Pageant has declined steeply in recent years among every demographic group except one — Hispanics. …. Trump said he plans to sue Univision for breach of contract. And today, he blamed Univision's actions on the Mexican government. He claimed Mexico was putting pressure on the network because of his opposition to trade deals with that country. …. . Following Univision's decision, the pageant hasn't just lost a broadcaster; two of the event's hosts said they were also dropping out. The controversy seems unlikely to fade, especially now that Trump is an official candidate for president. With his high name recognition, he places highly in many polls and is likely to be included in the first two Republican presidential debates scheduled for August.”

More than one of the Tea Partiites have made a number of annoying to downright shocking comments, and have had to back down and eat crow publically. About a year ago a Western state Republican said that if his constituency backed it, he would willingly “vote for slavery.” That shows what his idea of the place in our society for a statesman is – a “Yes man” to the richest supporters. See the following websites: (eaglerising.com/2617/tea-party-republican-jim-wheeler-vote-slavery/); Tea Party candidate says he won’t pay taxes if blacks get reparations (http://thegrio.com/2014/04/10/tea-party-candidate-says-he-wont-pay-taxes-if-blacks-get-reparations/); CPAC Participant Defends Slavery At Minority Outreach Panel: It Gave ‘Food And Shelter’ To Blacks, (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/15/1729331/cpac-slavery-minority-outreach/); Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.html). It has been growing ever more clear what the most rightwing of our currently elected Republican leaders actually do want, and it is nothing short of the destruction of our government. As for Trump, he is not of a very high order of intelligence, as shown in more than one incident since he entered politics. He was a strong advocate of the "Birther" doctrine. I think the more he says the more his position as an actual candidate rather than a comedian will be weakened. It’s truly funny.





http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/26/417733970/5-challenges-still-facing-obamacare

5 Challenges Still Facing Obamacare
Kaiser Health News
June 26, 2015

Photograph -- President Obama and Vice President Biden shake hands after the president spoke in the White House's Rose Garden Thursday about the Supreme Court decision in favor of Obamacare.
Carolyn Kaster/AP

In its first five years, the Affordable Care Act has survived technical meltdowns, a presidential election, two Supreme Court challenges — including one resolved Thursday — and dozens of repeal efforts in Congress. But its long-term future still isn't ensured.

Here are five of the biggest hurdles that remain.

Medicaid Expansion

About 4 million more Americans would gain coverage if all states expand the state-federal Medicaid programs to cover people with incomes at or slightly above the poverty line. So far, 21 states with Republican governors or GOP-controlled legislatures, including Texas and Florida, have balked, citing ideological objections, their own budget pressures, as well as skepticism about Washington's long-term commitment to pay for most of the costs.

Anemic Enrollment

Eighteen million Americans who are eligible to buy insurance in federal and state marketplaces haven't purchased it. Those marketplaces have had particular trouble enrolling Hispanics, young adults and people who object to being told to buy insurance. Federal funding used by state marketplaces to enroll people and advertise is drying up. Many state marketplaces haven't figured out how to be self-sustaining. Vermont, Hawaii, Colorado and Rhode Island are among those states searching for more money. The penalty for going without coverage rises next year to $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of family income—whichever is larger.

Market Stability

Nationally, premiums haven't gone up too much on average in the first two years of the marketplaces, but that could change. The federal government has been protecting insurers from unexpectedly high medical bills, but that cushion disappears after next year. At the same time, insurers finally have enough experience with their initial customers to figure out if their premiums are sufficient to cover medical costs. If they're not, expect increases.

Affordability

People who get their insurance through their employer have mostly been spared jolts from the health law. But the federal government begins taxing expensive health plans in 2018. The "Cadillac tax," created by the health law, will pressure employers to offer skimpier health coverage or pass the taxes' cost on to their employees. Also, individuals buying their insurance on the health law marketplaces continue to risk large out-of-pocket costs if they need lots of care. Their maximum financial obligations for next year are $6,850 for individuals and $13,700 for families. Those who choose to go out of their insurance network may have no ceiling on how much they may have to pay.

Political Resistance

Thursday's ruling did little to diminish the GOP's zeal to repeal the health law. Republicans on both sides of the Capitol pledged to continue their efforts to kill the ACA. A lawsuit filed by House Republicans last year alleges the president overstepped his authority when implementing the health law. The topic remains grist for the 2016 presidential campaign, with several Republican presidential candidates – including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — reiterating their desire to repeal the law. If the Republicans capture both the White House and Congress in 2016, all bets are off over whether the law survives intact.

Kaiser Health News writers Julie Appleby, Mary Agnes Carey, Phil Galewitz and Jordan Rau contributed to this report.




“So far, 21 states with Republican governors or GOP-controlled legislatures, including Texas and Florida, have balked, citing ideological objections, their own budget pressures, as well as skepticism about Washington's long-term commitment to pay for most of the costs. …. Eighteen million Americans who are eligible to buy insurance in federal and state marketplaces haven't purchased it. Those marketplaces have had particular trouble enrolling Hispanics, young adults and people who object to being told to buy insurance. …. Nationally, premiums haven't gone up too much on average in the first two years of the marketplaces, but that could change. The federal government has been protecting insurers from unexpectedly high medical bills, but that cushion disappears after next year. …. People who get their insurance through their employer have mostly been spared jolts from the health law. But the federal government begins taxing expensive health plans in 2018. The "Cadillac tax," created by the health law, will pressure employers to offer skimpier health coverage or pass the taxes' cost on to their employees. Also, individuals buying their insurance on the health law marketplaces continue to risk large out-of-pocket costs if they need lots of care. …. Republicans on both sides of the Capitol pledged to continue their efforts to kill the ACA. A lawsuit filed by House Republicans last year alleges the president overstepped his authority when implementing the health law.”

Bernie Sanders and others have been in favor of a “one payer” system in which the federal government pays for everything. I know I wasn’t able to pay for health insurance before I became old enough for Medicare, so I would have had to pay the Obamacare tax penalty. So, I personally am in favor of Sander’s recommendation. It’s simpler to just tax the wealthy and corporations more rather than have this system of subsidies and state run marketplaces. There’s a great room for error in that. Some things like this, I think, are more efficient and logical to be run from the top down. It would also be more fair to individuals or groups within the states who are given short shrift by the state government – there is a great contempt among some conservative Americans for “welfare mothers,” for instance.

A one payer system would also give the federal government the ability and right to regulate what payments the insurance companies and medical providers can demand for their services as well. For some reason there is presently a ban on Medicare’s bargaining with providers and insurers to bring costs down, I heard. That just makes good common sense to me! Democrats like that, and Republicans hate it – it smacks of regulating just how wealthy an individual is allowed to be, and sounds to them like Socialism, however the high cost of medical care – docs and hospitals – is one of the worst problems we’re having right now. Medical providers are grasping to make more and more money. An article a few months ago about a series of large hospitals which are supposedly for the poor, but which actually are gouging those very people monthly. Likewise are the insurance companies. Gone are the days when the local doctors were relatively well off but not among the superwealthy. I sometimes think that one of the bad things that has happened in this country (and world) is the growth of huge insurance companies whose whole goal is to make ever more money.

Luckily I had very few health problems before I made it to the age of 65, so I just went without insurance. I had a “Shands Card” which is an extension of Medicaid through the state of Florida. This current Obamacare plan, though a grand experiment, is, in my opinion, dangerously unwieldy with the effort to see to it that poor people have to “pay their fair share” out of what must be very tight incomes for most of them.

If it’s to be a one payer system, some new taxes would presumably be needed to pay for it. The wealthy and corporations would presumably have to put up a greater share. To allow an income source which the poor can use to “pay” their premiums, the government has instituted the subsidies system which the Supreme Court just barely allowed yesterday. Hopefully it could force some states to pony up their own state marketplaces and increase coverage under Medicaid as recommended, rather than reneging. The money to make the plan work has to come from somewhere, and at this point I don’t see clearly where that will be. However one “conservative” attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act has been disallowed by the Court. We seem to be one step ahead on the road.





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417457888/study-reveals-what-happens-during-a-glacial-earthquake

Study Reveals What Happens During A 'Glacial Earthquake'
Nell Greenfieldboyce
JUNE 25, 2015

Photograph -- One of the 20 GPS sensors deployed on Greenland's Helheim Glacier to track its movement. Alistair Everett/Swansea University

When giant icebergs break off of huge, fast-moving glaciers, they essentially push back on those rivers of ice and temporarily reverse the flow.

That's according to a new study of "glacial earthquakes," an unusual kind of temblor discovered just over a decade ago.

Glacial earthquakes happen when a really large hunk of ice breaks off a glacier in Greenland or Antarctica, says Meredith Nettles of Columbia University at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.

"We're talking about something that is a gigaton of ice," Nettles says. "That's sort of the size of an ice cube you would have if you filled up Central Park in New York City to the top of the Empire State Building."

A few years ago, her team was fortunate enough to see this kind of massive breakup of ice as they approached the front of a glacier in a helicopter.

"You see an enormous chunk of ice gradually start to tilt over, and it just lifts up all the water on top of it right up toward you as the iceberg continues to fall over. And you really see a mass of ice and water just flowing out into the fjord," she says. "And then very quickly, everything is still again."

Instruments around the world can pick up the resulting seismic rumbling, which can be like a magnitude-5 on the Richter scale.

"They are different from regular earthquakes. One way in which they are different is they take longer to happen," Nettles says. Instead of taking just seconds and generating rapid shaking, like an earthquake from the San Andreas Fault, a glacial earthquake can last a minute. This different signature in the seismic data is why scientists only recently discovered these earthquakes.

Nettles and her colleagues wanted to understand what exactly was happening when the earth shakes in this way. "We're really trying to understand, how does that seismic signal get created, when this ice detaches from the ice sheet," she explains.

Researchers used a helicopter to fly and land close to the calving edge of Helheim Glacier in Greenland. They put out a network of suitcase-sized GPS sensors that could precisely track the movement of the glacier. Over about two months, they captured information on 10 large calving events, all of which coincided with glacial earthquakes.

In a report published by the journal Science, they say a giant iceberg falling over generates a big enough force that it actually pushes back on the glacier, making it move backward and downward for several minutes.

"Imagine that you could go and just push on the front of the glacier with your thumb, really hard, so hard that you could reverse the direction that the front of the glacier is moving," says Nettles, "and then you let it go. And that backward and then forward motion is actually recorded in the GPS data from the front of the glacier."

The research team also set up a pretend glacier in the lab, using a tank of water with a plastic iceberg in it. The front of the fake glacier was outfitted with force and pressure sensors, so that it could be monitored as the fake iceberg tipped over and floated away.

"And what they see matches very closely what we see with the GPS data and the seismic data," Nettle says. "That allows us to actually build a better model for how the earthquake source works."

She says watching for the seismic signature of glacial earthquakes could give scientists a new way to measure the rate at which large glaciers are calving. That's important because ice is lost not just through melting, but also from calving, which is responsible for roughly half the ice mass being lost from Greenland.

"This is a great new way to monitor it quite inexpensively and accurately through time," agrees Eric Steig of the University of Washington, who called the new research "very convincing."

"This is a very cool piece of physics, so it's just fundamental science, which is just interesting," Steig says, "and it has direct relevance to things we ought to care about, like sea level."




“When giant icebergs break off of huge, fast-moving glaciers, they essentially push back on those rivers of ice and temporarily reverse the flow. That's according to a new study of "glacial earthquakes," an unusual kind of temblor discovered just over a decade ago. …. Instruments around the world can pick up the resulting seismic rumbling, which can be like a magnitude-5 on the Richter scale. "They are different from regular earthquakes. One way in which they are different is they take longer to happen," Nettles says. Instead of taking just seconds and generating rapid shaking, like an earthquake from the San Andreas Fault, a glacial earthquake can last a minute. This different signature in the seismic data is why scientists only recently discovered these earthquakes. …. They put out a network of suitcase-sized GPS sensors that could precisely track the movement of the glacier. Over about two months, they captured information on 10 large calving events, all of which coincided with glacial earthquakes. In a report published by the journal Science, they say a giant iceberg falling over generates a big enough force that it actually pushes back on the glacier, making it move backward and downward for several minutes. …. "This is a very cool piece of physics, so it's just fundamental science, which is just interesting," Steig says, "and it has direct relevance to things we ought to care about, like sea level."

I did wonder what happens to the sea water when a chunk of ice that large falls into it. It apparently rises up, just as the sea level is met by meltwater from those glaciers. Waterworld, here we come!





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417440765/tama-the-cat-that-saved-a-japanese-train-station-dies

Tama, The Cat That Saved A Japanese Train Station, Dies
Lucy Perkins
June 25, 2015

Photograph -- Tama had held sway as stationmaster of the Kishi train station since 2007. Toru Yamanaka/AFP/Getty Images
A calico cat in southeastern Japan has left some big paw prints to fill. Tama, who served as "stationmaster" of the Kishi train station near Wakayama City, died Monday from acute heart failure, according to CNN. She was 16 (about 80 in cat years), the network reports.

Tama is credited with saving the train station from financial ruin. Tourists would come to the station to see her hanging out in her office — a converted ticket booth — wearing a railway hat and collar. (A stationmaster is, generally, the human in charge of running the facility.)


The railway system's president, Mitsonubu Kojima, said he visited Tama the day before she died and that she "stood up and let out a strong meow."

Tama's station is on the outskirts of Wakayama City, according to a CNN report in 2013. Aside from local residents, not many people traveled through the station. The current railway operator selected Tama, who was owned by a local family, as stationmaster in 2007 to try to bring in more travelers.

She had a noticeable impact, according to Kyodo News:

"The number of passengers on the line jumped to 2.27 million in fiscal 2014 from 1.92 million in fiscal 2005. Photos of Tama and other merchandise also sold well, leading to her appointment to acting president of Wakayama Electric Railway in January 2013."

Here's more from CNN's 2013 story:

"Kishi station currently houses a Tama-themed cafe, as well as a souvenir shop with items ranging from the usual array of pens, staplers and other supplies, to Kishi Station uniforms.
"Tama's cuteness is exploited wherever possible — from the chairs to the cakes in the cafe to the cat-shaped station building itself.
"There's also a cat stationmaster apprentice, Nitama, who shoulders some responsibilities for Tama. Sleeping and doing nothing is hard work, you know?"
A memorial service reportedly is set for Sunday.




“Tama is credited with saving the train station from financial ruin. Tourists would come to the station to see her hanging out in her office — a converted ticket booth — wearing a railway hat and collar. (A stationmaster is, generally, the human in charge of running the facility.) Tama is credited with saving the train station from financial ruin. Tourists would come to the station to see her hanging out in her office — a converted ticket booth — wearing a railway hat and collar. (A stationmaster is, generally, the human in charge of running the facility.) …. She had a noticeable impact, according to Kyodo News: "The number of passengers on the line jumped to 2.27 million in fiscal 2014 from 1.92 million in fiscal 2005. Photos of Tama and other merchandise also sold well, leading to her appointment to acting president of Wakayama Electric Railway in January 2013." …. "There's also a cat stationmaster apprentice, Nitama, who shoulders some responsibilities for Tama. Sleeping and doing nothing is hard work, you know?" A memorial service reportedly is set for Sunday.”

The Japanese must be very fond of cats. There are also a number of “cat islands” in or around Japan according to http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima-a-cat-island-in-japan/386647/. That article says, “A Visit to Aoshima, a Japanese 'Cat Island', Alan Taylor, -- Aoshima Island is one of about a dozen "cat islands" around Japan, small places where there are significantly more feline residents than people. In Aoshima more than a hundred cats prowl the island, curling up in abandoned houses or strutting about in the quiet fishing village. Cats outnumber humans six to one on the island. Recently becoming popular online, tiny Aoshima has seen a steep rise in tourist visits, overwhelming the handful of permanent residents.” The photographs with this article are beautiful to examine. Take a look.

June 25, 2015


News Clips For The Day

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cat-library-offers-purrfect-solution-to-stress/


"Cat library" offers purrfect solution to stress
By STEVE HARTMAN CBS NEWS
June 5, 2015

LAS CRUCES, N.M. -- In Las Cruces, New Mexico, there's a library with no books, but a great story; a library with nothing to read, but that you have to check out; a library for people who just want to take a few minutes to sit down and get lost -- in a good kitten.

Becky Garcia is the kitten librarian. Actually, she's the receptionist at the Dona Ana County office building, where a couple years ago county officials installed a little kitty condo in the lobby. The cats are from a local shelter and they're available to any employee looking for a moment of purr bliss.

"Oh, you're typing for me, kitty," said Angela Roberson, a community planner and regular at the kitty library, as a kitten walked on her keyboard.

hartman-kitten-library-transferframe1947.jpg
A kitten rests on Angela Roberson's shoulder as she works CBS NEWS
She readily admits that her productivity goes down during these brief sessions -- but says her job satisfaction goes way up.

"It definitely relieves stress," said Angela. "I mean how can it not when you have a little fuzzy thing that you can take back to your office?"

Employees told us it makes the day fun and shows that the county does care -- and not just for the welfare of its workers, but for its homeless animals as well. See, when the county set this up it had a secret agenda.

hartman-kitten-library-transferframe2467.jpg
A kitten is caressed while sitting on a worker's desk CBS NEWS
Officials knew if people just took a few minutes to hold these animals that a bond might form. And in fact -- to date -- 100 kittens have been adopted from the library. And it's that kind of outside-the-cage thinking that folks here would like spread to other communities across the country.

"The joy, the smiles, I've seen so many smiles," said Becky.

Imagine a nation of libraries catering to those who just want to curl up with a good person.




What a great idea to save kittens from death at the pound! So many animal shelters do kill any dogs or cats that aren’t adopted after a few weeks. Unfortunately some feral animals are simply too wild and distrusting of humans to keep alive, so they are euthanized. That makes sense. If I had a few million dollars, I would definitely make animal shelters the beneficiaries of a thousand dollars or so each. Of course, what we need most is universal spaying of all stray cats. One city was in the news for its policy to allow feral cats to live outdoors unmolested as long as they were neutered and had rabies shots. One lady came out to the location where they had congregated (outside an apartment house garbage dump) and fed them dry food and fresh water daily.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-heckled-at-lgbt-gathering/

Obama heckled at LGBT gathering
CBS NEWS
June 24, 2015

Photograph -- U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and Vice President Joe Biden attend a reception for LGBT Pride Month in the East Room of the White House June 24, 2015 in Washington, DC. Obama delivered remarks highlighting the progress made by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the areas of insurance, military service, marriage and other rights. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) CHIP SOMODEVILLA, GETTY IMAGES

President Obama faced a heckler in the audience at the White House while hosting a reception to observe LGBT Pride Month Wednesday afternoon.

The crowd in the East Room was cheering when he entered, but about a minute into his speech, a protester in the audience could be heard jeering him, although her words were unintelligible. Mr. Obama and the protester talked over each other, and the president told her, "Listen, you're in my house - it's not respectful when you get invited to somebody - you're not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this." The protester continued to yell at the president as the crowd began to chant "Obama! Obama!" to drown out the yelling.

Poll: Americans' views on same-sex marriage
Supreme Court ruling against same-sex marriage could create chaos
The president then waited to resume his speech until the protester was escorted from the room.

Mr. Obama told the audience, "As a general rule I am just fine with a few hecklers but not when I'm up in the house, you know my attitude is if you're eating the hors d'oeuvres, you know what I'm saying, and drinking the booze..."

Shortly after the event, a group called GetEQUAL released a statement about the protester, identifying her as an undocumented transgender woman named Jennicet Gutiérrez, who was shouting "President Obama, release all LGBTQ immigrants from detention and stop all deportations." Her complaint, the release said, was that "she could not celebrate while some 75 transgender detainees were still being exposed to assault and abuse in ICE custody at this very moment."

After Gutiérrez was taken out of the room, the president resumed his remarks celebrating the accomplishments on behalf of the LGBT community. He said, "Together we've been able to do more to protect rights of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Americans than in any other time in our history," citing the end of don't-ask-don't-tell and the passage of a hate crimes bill named in part for Matthew Sheppard."

The president went on to note that there is still more to be done. "There are still battles to wage more hearts and minds to change as long as there is a single child in America who is afraid to be who they are, we've got more work to do," the president said.




Obama really does have a charm and wit about him that helps in situations like this. He playfully chided her and “wagged his finger” at her saying, “No, no, no, no, no!” and had her physically removed from the room. He then went on to acknowledge that there is still a need for a great deal of progress for the LGBT community. Some conservatives think he is not a “strong” enough president, but I do feel safer with someone in office who doesn’t become very angry and cause an international incident. It would be easy to start WWIII with Putin or Kim, for instance. Putin is a soccer player, and Obama is a chess player. I prefer the latter.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charleston-shooting-ex-follower-of-racist-ideology-explains-radicalization/

Former skinhead explains how he was radicalized
By DEAN REYNOLDS CBS NEWS
June 23, 2015

Photograph -- Charles Picciolini in his neo-Nazi days

Dylann Roof described in a manifesto how he came to embrace racism through online forums. One man told how he made that same descent into darkness -- but came out of it.

Open a certain box in Christian Picciolini's home and the first things to pop out are painful reminders of his past, artifacts of his days as a race-baiting skinhead.

"I was a neo-Nazi skinhead from 1987 to 1995, roughly from the time I was 14 years old until I was 21.

He says he and alleged Charleston shooter Dylann Roof might once have been kindred spirits.

He says during those days he would have applauded Roof.

"I would have thought this guy had the courage to speak for the rest of us and do something," he said.

Picciolini grew up the son of immigrants in a blue collar suburb of Chicago.

"I was standing here smoking a joint," he explained. "And the guy walked up to me and he just said 'don't you know that's what the communists and Jews want you to do to keep you docile.' I was infatuated by this power, he had a shaved head and boots and thin suspenders on and I'd never seen anything like it, and from that moment on I wanted to like that guy.

He liked the message and loved the music.

"White power for America! White power for America!" Piccolini shouted, leading his old band Final Solution.

"The music spoke of unemployment and spoke of black on white crimes," Picciolini said. "When I was told that the white race was being attacked from all sides and that minorities were to blame for all the problems that I was having, I bought in."

Back then, recruitment was one kid at a time. But these days the radical fringe can easily work its way into anyone's home computer.

"It's much easier," said Picciolini. "Because there is a layer of anonymity for people and you can say almost anything you want."

Now, watching events unfold in Charleston, Picciolini hears echoes in the sentiments of Dylann Roof.

Christian Picciolini shows the relics of his past life as a racist ideagogue, but he has since left it behind. CBS NEWS
"He could literally have torn pages out of my book and posted it online," he said. "The rhetoric is the same.

"Not everyone becomes a Dylann Roof. But I think that there are thousands of people like him across our country that eventually could be radicalized enough to cause as much damage as he did."

These days Christian Picciolini tries to help others leave the skinhead movement just like he did. He co-founded a non-profit organization called Life After Hate.




The video with this article plays the harsh, angry, raucous music that was partly responsible for his radicalization. That kind of radicalization is clearly a mental health issue and one that grew and developed from that disenchanted and alienated time of life that so many young people go through, though the end result of their actions is what we have to call “evil.” In the end the law has to stand up for civil rights and justice, and now this young man is probably going to be facing the death penalty. Unfortunately, it makes sense.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charleston-violence-returns-nations-focus-to-race-relations/

Charleston massacre returns nation's focus to race relations
By JIM AXELROD CBS NEWS
June 18, 2015

Photograph -- After the deadly shootings in Charleston, S.C., the nation found itself again asking painful questions about race relations. CBS NEWS

The violence in Charleston comes at a time of increasing mistrust between blacks and whites.

When Walter Scott -- an unarmed black man -- was shot and killed by a white police officer two months ago, the Charleston area took center stage in the nation's painful examination of race relations.

Exactly where it finds itself again tonight.

And it's a country that's growing increasingly pessimistic. In a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 61 percent said race relations in this country were bad, the highest number since the Rodney King riots 23 years ago.

But the full picture of hate in this country may actually be more troubling. The FBI reported 5,922 hate crimes in 2013. Richard Cohen, head of the Southern Poverty Law Center, says that is just a fraction.

"The true number -- according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics -- is over 200,000, so it's wrong by a factor of over 30 unfortunately," said Cohen. "Hate crime reporting in our country is purely voluntary and hundreds of jurisdictions don't participate."

Take South Carolina, where the Southern Poverty Law Center has counted 13 white supremacist groups. But where Cohen says there were zero race-based hate crimes reported last year.

"Jurisdictions are not required to report hate crimes," said Cohen. "South Carolina not only isn't required to report hate crime federally, there's not even a hate crime law in South Carolina."

The Internet also makes the job of tracking hate much more challenging. One pop-ular white supremacist website now has 300,000 registered users, up 60 percent in five years.




“The Internet also makes the job of tracking hate much more challenging. One pop-ular white supremacist website now has 300,000 registered users, up 60 percent in five years. …. But the full picture of hate in this country may actually be more troubling. The FBI reported 5,922 hate crimes in 2013. Richard Cohen, head of the Southern Poverty Law Center, says that is just a fraction. "The true number -- according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics -- is over 200,000, so it's wrong by a factor of over 30 unfortunately," said Cohen. "Hate crime reporting in our country is purely voluntary and hundreds of jurisdictions don't participate." Take South Carolina, where the Southern Poverty Law Center has counted 13 white supremacist groups. But where Cohen says there were zero race-based hate crimes reported last year.”

South Carolina, along with a number of other states, has only voluntary reporting of hate crimes and there is no hate crime law on the books. The Tea Party Republicans have been vocal in their complaints against “hate crime laws,” as being unnecessary as long as rape, assault, murder, etc. are in force. The point is that a murder for sexual jealousy is often considered – or was when I was young in the South – an act which is in some eyes “justifiable homicide” and the murderer may get off with a year or so in prison, especially if he is rich and white or if the victim is black or of another race. Likewise, if he is a hater of blacks and Jews and kills someone of those groups, well that’s his right and privilege under the doctrine of “free thought.” The rise in popularity of one hate site by 60% (!!!) is “a sign of the times,” in which the poor and Middle Class of all races are getting poorer and are therefore under greater and greater stress. They are looking for someone to blame and the blacks and Jews will do just fine. I was pleased to see that a number of whites made their views known in support for the black church which was so horribly violated last week. The violence of the baseless act repulsed them, I think, making them stand up for human rights. I am very relieved to see this, because I had become discouraged about the virtues of our US population here since Ferguson. I believe it is possible for us to become the “city upon a hill” so touted by the Tea Party, in our daily lives as we REFORM voluntarily as well as enact important new laws to back up the changes. If we can get to the point that our police forces across the whole country will fire bad officers and hire good one, train them in human relations, plus enforcing supervisory discipline as needed, we will be in a much better place.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pennsylvania-court-law-nra-gun-challenges/

Court tosses Pennsylvania law aiding NRA gun challenges
AP June 25, 2015

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A state court on Thursday struck down a law designed to make it easier for gun owners and organizations like the National Rifle Association to challenge local firearms ordinances in court.

The Commonwealth Court said the procedure that the Republican-controlled Legislature used to enact the law in the final days of last year's session violated the state constitution. The ruling came after dozens of municipalities had already repealed their gun laws.

Under the law, gun owners no longer had to show they were harmed by a local ordinance to challenge it, and it let "membership organizations" like the NRA sue on behalf of any Pennsylvania member. The law also allowed successful challengers to seek damages.

The NRA's lobbying arm had called the measure "the strongest firearms pre-emption statute in the country."

Five Democratic legislators and the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster sued to block the law, saying it was passed improperly. The GOP defendants included House Speaker Mike Turzai and then-Gov. Tom Corbett, who lost his bid for re-election last year.

Thursday's ruling sends "a very strong message to the General Assembly that the old way of doing business just isn't acceptable anymore," said Mark McDonald, press secretary to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. "The law requires and the public expects transparency, deliberation and public debate."

Said Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto: "I'm overjoyed that the court system is joining us in standing up for citizens and public safety instead of special rights for the gun lobby."

Pennsylvania, which has a strong tradition of hunting and gun ownership, has long prohibited its municipalities from enforcing firearms ordinances that regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition. Gun-rights groups complained that scores of municipalities ignored the 40-year-old prohibition by approving their own gun restrictions.

The NRA seized on the new state law, which took effect in January, to challenge gun measures in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster. None of those lawsuits have been decided, and the judges presiding over them may opt to delay ruling until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court takes up the issue of the new law's constitutionality.

"We understand that this case is probably headed to a higher court," said Jonathan Goldstein, an attorney for the NRA.

About 50 Pennsylvania municipalities have already repealed, or were in the process of repealing, their gun laws, according to a running tally kept by Joshua Prince, an attorney for four pro-gun groups, who had put the municipalities on notice that they would face legal action unless they rescinded their firearms ordinances.

Sen. Daylin Leach, one of five Democrats who joined in the challenge of the state law, said the municipalities that repealed their gun ordinances because of the law can now restore them.

But Prince said that would be unwise. He predicted the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to keep the new law on the books.

The Commonwealth Court's decision hinged on how the bill was put together last year.

The gun provision was merged with a bill whose intent was to establish criminal penalties for theft of secondary metals, such as wires or cables. The Commonwealth Court judges said that process violated constitutional requirements that bills may not be altered to change their original purpose and must be confined to one subject.




“A state court on Thursday struck down a law designed to make it easier for gun owners and organizations like the National Rifle Association to challenge local firearms ordinances in court. The Commonwealth Court said the procedure that the Republican-controlled Legislature used to enact the law in the final days of last year's session violated the state constitution. The ruling came after dozens of municipalities had already repealed their gun laws. Under the law, gun owners no longer had to show they were harmed by a local ordinance to challenge it, and it let "membership organizations" like the NRA sue on behalf of any Pennsylvania member. The law also allowed successful challengers to seek damages. …. Thursday's ruling sends "a very strong message to the General Assembly that the old way of doing business just isn't acceptable anymore," said Mark McDonald, press secretary to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. "The law requires and the public expects transparency, deliberation and public debate." Said Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto: "I'm overjoyed that the court system is joining us in standing up for citizens and public safety instead of special rights for the gun lobby." …. The Commonwealth Court's decision hinged on how the bill was put together last year. The gun provision was merged with a bill whose intent was to establish criminal penalties for theft of secondary metals, such as wires or cables. The Commonwealth Court judges said that process violated constitutional requirements that bills may not be altered to change their original purpose and must be confined to one subject.”

One of the things that has irritated me for years is the habit in the US legislature of linking highly objectionable provisions with a necessary budget bill, with the result that the “poison pill” law will be approved or on the other hand, the federal budget will be blocked, with the result that the government will be shut down. That is a favorite ploy of the Tea Party. There should be a law against that – as in the Pennsylvania system here – requiring no more than one subject in a law. Besides if that were the case no law would be thousands of pages long, thus preventing lawmakers from reading it all the way through before they voted on it.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-minorities-increasingly-in-the-majority/

U.S. minorities increasingly in the majority
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH
June 25, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Race in America
Play VIDEO -- Poll: Race relations in the U.S. at new low

The face of America is changing.

The baby boomers, once the country's largest generation, can no longer hold claim to the title. The so-called millennial generation, or those Americans born between 1982 and 2000, is now the country's biggest segment of the population, with 83.1 million members, compared with 75.4 million for the boomers, according to a new U.S. Census report.

It's not only the numbers that are shifting, but also the country's diversity. Millennials, who represent more than one-quarter of the U.S. population, are more racially diverse than the nation's older generations, Census data shows. About 44 percent are part of a minority race or ethnic group, compared with only about 22 percent for Americans over the age of 65.

Still, there's another generation that's giving the millennials a run on the claim of being America's most diverse group. The country's youngest citizens, those younger than 5 years old, are the first group in U.S. history to represent a "majority-minority," which means more of them are minorities than whites. About 50.2 percent of Americans younger than 5 are minorities, the Census said.


That's having a long-term impact on America's racial and generational composition. A decade ago, minorities represented about 33 percent of the country. That's shifted to almost 38 percent in 2014.

Several trends are driving the changes, such as immigration from China and Mexico, along with an increase in multiracial families.

"Mexico has been the largest sending country of immigrants for quite some time, but China has taken over as the top sending country," said Ben Bolender, chief of the Census' Population Estimates Branch. The country's entire population is expected to tip into "majority-minority" in 2044, he said.

Asked whether the term "minority" will need to be dropped when that happens, Bolender said, "It's difficult to formulate race definitions that people can identify accurately in." That's why the Census is considering changing how it asks about race in 2020, he noted. "The definitions are constantly changing, so we'll have to wait and see what terminology is most appropriate."

In 2020, the Census may ask people to check off what "categories" best describe themselves, rather than race. It might also add new racial categories, such as one for people of Middle Eastern or North African heritage.

The share of multiracial babies has surged, rising from 1 percent in 1970 to 10 percent in 2013, according to a Pew Research Center study published earlier this month. Taboos against interracial marriage and relationships have faded, and demographers believe there will be more multiracial children born in future decades.

These social shifts are also having other effects. That includes how businesses market their products, with many companies eager to attract millennials, given the group's size. Whole Foods (WFM), just to cite one example, is opening a new chain that will target millennials. While details regarding the concept weren't available, millennials are a frugal group, often looking for bargains and good values.

That might be due to their values, but it could also reflect the fact that the millennial generation is coming of age during the slow economic recovery that has followed the Great Recession, an era of weak wage growth and, for many, diminished opportunity as inequality increases. Many are also struggling under the burden of student loans, with the class of 2015 graduating as the most indebted ever.

Indeed, while millennials are now the biggest generation in America, they are far from the richest. As a group they are heavily in debt, with half of them reporting that paying down their loans consumes more than half their monthly income, according to a 2014 study by Wells Fargo (WFC). Many are delaying buying a home and starting a family, given their debt issues and the uneven recovery.

A diverse future

The historic shift in America's racial composition is most visible in certain parts of the country. There are five U.S. states where the population has already shifted to a majority-minority, according to the latest Census data.

Hawaii has the most diverse population, with 77 percent of its residents counting as members of a minority race or ethnic group. Next is Washington, D.C., at 64.2 percent, followed by California at 61.5 percent. New Mexico is the fourth-most diverse state, at 61.1 percent, with Texas ranking fifth at 56.5 percent.

Several other states are on the threshold of switching from being predominantly white to a majority-minority. They include Nevada, with 48.5 percent of its population considered minorities.

What does America's minority population look like? Hispanics are the largest group, with 55.4 million as of July 2014, or an increase of 2.1 percent from the previous year.

The black population counts 45.7 million Americans, an increase of 1.3 percent since July 2013. Asians are the third-largest group, at 20.3 million, an increase of 3.2 percent from the previous year. American Indians totaled 6.5 million in mid-2014, an increase of 1.4 percent since the previous year.

As for non-Hispanic whites, there are 197.9 million in the country, an increase of 0.5 percent from the previous year.




“The so-called millennial generation, or those Americans born between 1982 and 2000, is now the country's biggest segment of the population, with 83.1 million members, compared with 75.4 million for the boomers, according to a new U.S. Census report. It's not only the numbers that are shifting, but also the country's diversity. Millennials, who represent more than one-quarter of the U.S. population, are more racially diverse than the nation's older generations, Census data shows. About 44 percent are part of a minority race or ethnic group, compared with only about 22 percent for Americans over the age of 65. …. About 50.2 percent of Americans younger than 5 are minorities, the Census said. That's having a long-term impact on America's racial and generational composition. A decade ago, minorities represented about 33 percent of the country. That's shifted to almost 38 percent in 2014. Several trends are driving the changes, such as immigration from China and Mexico, along with an increase in multiracial families. …. . The country's entire population is expected to tip into "majority-minority" in 2044, he said. Asked whether the term "minority" will need to be dropped when that happens, Bolender said, "It's difficult to formulate race definitions that people can identify accurately in." That's why the Census is considering changing how it asks about race in 2020, he noted. "The definitions are constantly changing, so we'll have to wait and see what terminology is most appropriate." …. While details regarding the concept weren't available, millennials are a frugal group, often looking for bargains and good values. That might be due to their values, but it could also reflect the fact that the millennial generation is coming of age during the slow economic recovery that has followed the Great Recession, an era of weak wage growth and, for many, diminished opportunity as inequality increases. Many are also struggling under the burden of student loans, with the class of 2015 graduating as the most indebted ever. …. . There are five U.S. states where the population has already shifted to a majority-minority, according to the latest Census data. Hawaii has the most diverse population, with 77 percent of its residents counting as members of a minority race or ethnic group. Next is Washington, D.C., at 64.2 percent, followed by California at 61.5 percent. New Mexico is the fourth-most diverse state, at 61.1 percent, with Texas ranking fifth at 56.5 percent. Several other states are on the threshold of switching from being predominantly white to a majority-minority. They include Nevada, with 48.5 percent of its population considered minorities.”

It looks as though people who have a phobia about skin color, etc., are in for some traumatic times in the future. This change could possibly mean that political progressives, liberals and Democrats will begin to dominate as time goes on, and laws discriminating against them will have been expunged from the system. That assumes that the Koch brothers will not have taken over the country lock stock and barrel and we are no longer still a democracy by 2044. I will, of course, be dead by then, so I’ll never know if my group of people won or lost the political race here. If the present upsurge in Neo-Nazi feeling in Europe and the US does continue, perhaps everything I hold dear will be gone by then. I hope the earth will still have enough water on it to grow beautiful wild flowers and animals even if the human population is greatly diminished or fully extinct. I hope there will be at least some enclaves of humans left who can read all our books that will be left and perhaps start our civilization up again. I suggest that any of you have not yet read the wonderful book by Walter Miller, Jr. which is called “A Canticle For Leibowitz” will take a week or so and read it now!

June 23, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ash-carter-heavy-weapons-eastern-nato-russia-nuclear-provocations-ukraine/

U.S. sending arms to answer "Russia's provocations"
CBS NEWS
June 23, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Defense secretary slams Putin over nuclear missiles
Play VIDEO -- NATO asked to step in amid regional tensions with Russia
Play VIDEO -- Charlie Rose talks to Russian President Vladimir Putin

TALLINN, Estonia -- Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirmed Tuesday that the U.S. is to station heavy military equipment, including tanks and other weapons, in new NATO member states for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

"These are responses to Russia's provocations," Carter told CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan in an exclusive interview in Estonia, one of the nations the American defense chief said could already "feel" the imminent threat posed by its massive neighbour to the east.

The increased American military presence -- some 250 tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment -- on Russia's doorstep is intended to reassure jittery allies like Estonia, which have been alarmed by Russia's annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists leading the war in eastern Ukraine.

Carter's announcement of plans to permanently station the heavy weapons across seven eastern Europe nations, and a promise of a larger troop and aircraft presence, comes days after Russian President Vladimir Putin said he would add more than "40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of penetrating even the most technologically advanced missile defense systems" to Moscow's arsenal.

The newly positioned U.S. military hardware was to be located, at least for now, in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania.

Carter told Brennan it was that "aggressive rhetoric, aggressive behavior -- the kind of thing that doesn't belong in a Europe" of today, making America's NATO allies nervous.

"We continue to hope that Russia will change course," added the defense secretary. "I don't see any signs of that, but we continue to hold the door open."

Asked by Brennan whether Putin's words were seen as a genuine military threat or merely rhetoric, Carter said he took the Russian leader "at his word."

"What's odd about it is the level of rhetoric," added Carter. "That's what's so out of tune with the times and the way responsible world leaders have conducted themselves with respect to talking about what are very fearsome weapons."

The defense chief told Brennan the American weaponry being added to NATO's "eastern flank" was meant to bolster the alliance's deterrent power in the face recent Russian actions, but called it "heavy combat equipment for training purposes primarily."

He said it will be easier for U.S. forces training their European allies to "fall upon that equipment," rather than spending the added time and money necessary to move heavy weapons into place just for exercises.

President Putin has insisted repeatedly -- most recently during a question-and-answer session with "CBS This Morning" co-host Charlie Rose at an economic summit in St. Petersburg -- that his government is "not aggressive," but merely "persistent in pursuing our interests."

During that session, Putin did not explicitly deny long-standing U.S. claims that Russian troops and military hardware are directly supporting separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Putin has said Russia's increasingly assertive military stance in the region is merely a response to NATO's spread into neighboring countries -- which he said has been, in places like eastern Ukraine, against the will of local populations.

Speaking to Rose, Putin accused Washington of "interfering with our internal political processes" by financing non-governmental organizations in Russia and practicing "interventionist" security measures on the world stage.

"We are in fact being told that the United States know better what we need. Let us define our own interests and our needs ourselves," Putin said.




“Secretary of Defense Ash Carter confirmed Tuesday that the U.S. is to station heavy military equipment, including tanks and other weapons, in new NATO member states for the first time since the end of the Cold War. "These are responses to Russia's provocations," Carter told CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan in an exclusive interview in Estonia, one of the nations the American defense chief said could already "feel" the imminent threat posed by its massive neighbour to the east. The increased American military presence -- some 250 tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment -- on Russia's doorstep is intended to reassure jittery allies like Estonia, which have been alarmed by Russia's annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists leading the war in eastern Ukraine. …. The newly positioned U.S. military hardware was to be located, at least for now, in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. Carter told Brennan it was that "aggressive rhetoric, aggressive behavior -- the kind of thing that doesn't belong in a Europe" of today, making America's NATO allies nervous. "We continue to hope that Russia will change course," added the defense secretary. "I don't see any signs of that, but we continue to hold the door open." …. The defense chief told Brennan the American weaponry being added to NATO's "eastern flank" was meant to bolster the alliance's deterrent power in the face recent Russian actions, but called it "heavy combat equipment for training purposes primarily." …. Putin has said Russia's increasingly assertive military stance in the region is merely a response to NATO's spread into neighboring countries -- which he said has been, in places like eastern Ukraine, against the will of local populations. Speaking to Rose, Putin accused Washington of "interfering with our internal political processes" by financing non-governmental organizations in Russia and practicing "interventionist" security measures on the world stage.”

I am relieved to see the US taking a step, even if it is a small one, in the direction of standing up to Putin’s newly resurrected empire. Just announcing yet another set of economic sanctions has the look of cowardice to me, though it is undoubtedly the “diplomatic” technique. It just didn’t seem to be working, and
Russia simply continued pushing. It would be a great pity if we failed to get our weapons and soldiers in the battlefield while Russia continued on from Ukraine into the other neighboring nations. I have been feeling ever since the takeover of
Crimea that we very likely may have to fight them in an outright war soon. Perhaps now, but I really don’t trust Putin at all.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-supreme-court-about-to-gut-obamacare/

Is the Supreme Court about to gut Obamacare?
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH
June 23, 2015

Play Video == Attorneys On Obamacare: King v Burwell hinges on Tax Subsidies

As early as this week, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that could radically change -- and perhaps even doom -- Obamacare.

The case the justices are mulling, King v. Burwell, poses a legal challenge to the tax credits offered to consumers in 34 states who bought health insurance through the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) federally run exchanges. About 6 million people in those states who used the government program to buy insurance could lose their subsidies if the High Court agrees that the law's wording -- "established by the state" -- limits federal assistance only to those states running their own exchanges.

For opponents to Obamacare, meanwhile, the ruling likely represents the final chance to challenge the 2010 law.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the lead plaintiff, 64-year old Vietnam veteran David M. King, many of those 6 million Americans would likely drop their insurance plans, which would suddenly become unaffordable without the subsidies. There would likely be a shakeout period as consumers, states and the federal government try to deal with the fallout. Already, discussions are underway at the state level about legislative fixes, while President Obama has noted that Congress could make a "one-sentence provision" if the court upends the current system.

"If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it will have a devastating impact in at least 34 states," predicted Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit advocacy group focused on affordable health care. "A vast majority of [those who will lose their subsidies] will join the ranks of the uninsured. The people who are most likely to drop out are younger, healthier people. The people least likely to drop out are older, sicker people. That means premiums will skyrocket for everybody."

The end result, he said, "will be what you would call a death spiral" for Obamacare.

Pollack, a former law school dean, said he believes the Supreme Court will uphold the subsidies in all the states, calling the plantiffs' case "weak."

"What's so strange about this situation is there isn't anything a consumer can do except wait and see," said Rick Lindquist, chief executive of Zane Benefits, an online provider of health insurance reimbursement for small businesses. "Congressmen and women are waiting to see what will happen before introducing legislation. Employers are waiting before modifying plans."

Below are five things to know about how a court decision in favor of King, and effectively against Obamacare, could impact millions of Americans.

Subsidies will be dropped, not insurance. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, subsidies will be dropped for people who receive them in the 34 states with federally run exchanges. Consumers will still have their health insurance under the ACA, so those who can afford a sharp spike in their premiums will be able to maintain their policies. States with their own insurance marketplaces, such as Vermont and New York, wouldn't be impacted.

The people would be affected are mostly white, middle-class and work full-time. Americans who would become uninsured if the court invalidates the subsidies are most likely to be white, working full-time, and earning middle-class to low-income pay, although they aren't poor, according to the Urban Institute. Almost six out of 10 live in the South. The surge in health-care premiums might be impossible for many to handle, with the Washington think tank finding that the costs for families making between 200 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level -- or $48,500 to $97,000 for a family of four-- would see their annual premiums under Obamacare more than triple to $15,563.

Some states are considering their own fixes. "States can absolutely fix this issue by taking on the burden of running their own exchanges," noted Zane Benefit's Lindquist. Some states are already taking preliminary steps toward this end, including Pennsylvania, Delaware and Arkansas. However, officials in some states, including Wisconsin and South Dakota, insist the fix needs to be at the congressional level.

Congress could take action and make a fix. While President Obama earlier this month said a ruling against the subsidies "would be hard to fix," he also noted that "Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision." Families USA's Pollack added, "You could prepare a one-page bill that would fix this completely. It would restore subsidies and make sure no one is harmed." But given the complexity of politics, that's not a sure thing, or it could come with a catch, such as providing only a short-term fix through the 2016 election, he said.

Be prepared for the worst. For consumers who could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling, it's important to have a handle on the financial impact and to start crafting a backup plan, Lindquist said. First, be aware of what your subsidy is and how much you'll need to pay to keep your insurance if the subsidies are dropped, he said. "Make sure you have at least three months of that additional cost in savings," Lindquist advised. Lastly, he said, "Have a backup plan to maybe go to a lower-grade insurance plan that costs less."




“First, be aware of what your subsidy is and how much you'll need to pay to keep your insurance if the subsidies are dropped, he said. "Make sure you have at least three months of that additional cost in savings," Lindquist advised. Lastly, he said, "Have a backup plan to maybe go to a lower-grade insurance plan that costs less." …. Americans who would become uninsured if the court invalidates the subsidies are most likely to be white, working full-time, and earning middle-class to low-income pay, although they aren't poor, according to the Urban Institute. Almost six out of 10 live in the South. …. Some states are considering their own fixes. "States can absolutely fix this issue by taking on the burden of running their own exchanges," noted Zane Benefit's Lindquist. Some states are already taking preliminary steps toward this end, including Pennsylvania, Delaware and Arkansas. However, officials in some states, including Wisconsin and South Dakota, insist the fix needs to be at the congressional level. …. "You could prepare a one-page bill that would fix this completely. It would restore subsidies and make sure no one is harmed." But given the complexity of politics, that's not a sure thing, or it could come with a catch, such as providing only a short-term fix through the 2016 election, he said. …. . About 6 million people in those states who used the government program to buy insurance could lose their subsidies if the High Court agrees that the law's wording -- "established by the state" -- limits federal assistance only to those states running their own exchanges. For opponents to Obamacare, meanwhile, the ruling likely represents the final chance to challenge the 2010 law. …. "A vast majority of [those who will lose their subsidies] will join the ranks of the uninsured. The people who are most likely to drop out are younger, healthier people. The people least likely to drop out are older, sicker people. That means premiums will skyrocket for everybody."

“Pollack, a former law school dean, said he believes the Supreme Court will uphold the subsidies in all the states, calling the plaintiffs' case "weak." To think that all this revolves around a Tea Party attempt to take advantage of an error in the wording of the law, which I assume should have been detected by a careful examination but wasn’t, makes me ill. I hope and pray that the Supreme Court rules in favor of federal subsidies even without the state marketplaces being set up in all states. The whole intention of the law is to provide these subsidies for a Middle Class whose economic position is already getting weaker and weaker due to low wages, too few jobs, and a cost of living that is already high. The federal and state governments need to protect the Middle Class as well as the poor, or there may soon be no Middle Class. That, of course, is what the 1% at the top want to avoid, so they can fully take over our economic system and even – who knows – the World? They want the government to serve them entirely, and they don’t care who else suffers. Why should they? They have their six homes and three yachts and furs and diamonds and businesses?





http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/supreme-court-ruling-on-health-law-will-shape-obamas-legacy.html?_r=0

Ruling Against Obama Would Damage, Not Negate, a Health Care Legacy
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
JUNE 23, 2015

Photograph -- President Obama defended the health care law at a conference of Catholic hospitals this month. Credit Zach Gibson/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The night his administration’s Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, President Obama described the victory the way he hopes historians will: as a “stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American dream.”

But Mr. Obama’s prospects for a legacy of expanding health care coverage in the United States for generations have rarely seemed as uncertain as they do today. “Will that have, in the history books, an impact on the president?” said Kathleen Sebelius, who as secretary of health and human services led the fight in Congress to pass the health care law. “I’m sure. I know Republicans like to focus on how this would be a great blow to the president. But for heaven’s sake, they would have a mess on their hands.”




“Will that have, in the history books, an impact on the president?” said Kathleen Sebelius, who as secretary of health and human services led the fight in Congress to pass the health care law. “I’m sure. I know Republicans like to focus on how this would be a great blow to the president. But for heaven’s sake, they would have a mess on their hands.” As they say in an old song from my childhood, “We’re in the same boat, brother, and when you shake one end you’re gonna rock the other!” So sit down and stop causing trouble! It’s our nation, our government, our society and our economy. If we fail as a nation we will all fail together.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charleston-shooting-naacp-president-we-must-go-after-hate-groups/

NAACP president: We must go after hate groups
By REBECCA KAPLAN FACE THE NATION
June 21, 2015

Play VIDEO -- South Carolina Senator: Legislative answer uncertain against that much hatred
Play VIDEO -- Searching for answers and peace after Charleston attack
Play VIDEO -- Charleston: Warning signs in atmosphere of hate

NAACP President Cornell William Brooks called for more vigorous investigation and prosecution of hate groups in the United States after a young man who displayed racist ideology allegedly shot and killed nine people at a historically black church.

"This crime may have occurred in moments. But it came into being over some time. This young man was indoctrinated, radicalized, if you will, with an ideology of white nationalism or racism. And so the point being here is we've got to look at not only this individual act of brutality. We also have to look at the atmosphere from which it emerged. And we have to address that," Brooks said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

A manifesto and photos apparently posted online by the shooting suspect, Dylann Roof, suggested the attack was racially motivated.

"I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country," he wrote. The more than 2,000-word manifesto bemoans the lack of groups like the Ku Klux Klan to take action.

Roof writes that he was "not raised in a racist home or environment," and that his attitude towards racism was "truly awakened" by the 2012 Trayvon Martin case, in which Florida man George Zimmerman shot and killed the 17-year-old black teen.

Brooks pointed to the fact that photos of Roof showed him wearing the flag of apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia, which became modern-day Zimbabwe. He also drove a car bearing the Confederate flag.

"Each of these symbols is illustrative of an underlying racism in this country, among a minority of Americans, but a level of racism and racial bigotry, and racist ideology that we cannot blink, we cannot ignore," Brooks said. "It is a moral ugliness in our midst, but we've got to address that."

In a separate interview, former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole said the ideology displayed by Roof "evolves over a long period of time."

"Frankly, it goes back to when he was a small child. You develop your coping behaviors. You develop your outlook on life. You develop an attitude towards violence. And all of that evolves to the point where the world is a bad place to live. The world is filled with enemies. You hate people," she said.

Brooks called for the country's "democratic and moral leaders" to talk about the racist ideologies and said there should be enough resources for vigorous prosecution and investigation of hate groups. The country must stamp out racism, Brooks said.

He also reiterated the reasons that the NAACP believes South Carolina must remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol. The NAACP has boycotted the state for years in an effort to bring the flag down.

"The fact of the matter is, that flag represents exclusion. It represents bigotry. It represents bias. There are white nationalist groups across the country who see that flag as representing their values," he said. "In 2015, it's a anachronistic emblem of a bygone era at best. And most likely, and most representative, a set of values that run contradictory, that run counter to who we are as Americans. It has to come down. It must come down."

Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, said Americans have created a context in which white supremacy is considered more of a different viewpoint than something that should be condemned.

"This is dangerous, fatal for black people," she said. "I think we need leadership, leadership not only in Congress, leadership in law enforcement, to call this what it is, domestic terrorism. And we have to use all of our tools to get at that."




"I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country," he wrote. The more than 2,000-word manifesto bemoans the lack of groups like the Ku Klux Klan to take action. …. "This crime may have occurred in moments. But it came into being over some time. This young man was indoctrinated, radicalized, if you will, with an ideology of white nationalism or racism. And so the point being here is we've got to look at not only this individual act of brutality. We also have to look at the atmosphere from which it emerged. And we have to address that," Brooks said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday. …. "Frankly, it goes back to when he was a small child. You develop your coping behaviors. You develop your outlook on life. You develop an attitude towards violence. And all of that evolves to the point where the world is a bad place to live. The world is filled with enemies. You hate people," she said. Brooks called for the country's "democratic and moral leaders" to talk about the racist ideologies and said there should be enough resources for vigorous prosecution and investigation of hate groups. The country must stamp out racism, Brooks said.”

There really is a lot of hardcore mental illness in our culture nowadays. For at least twenty years there have been groups promoting hatred and “race war,” as though that would be an acceptable way for our culture to exist. What possible advantage for people who need a home, a job, friends and a safe life would a race war bring? I personally believe all these types are mentally slow and/or disturbed. Perhaps we do, indeed, need to put them all in prisons?





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/walmart-to-remove-items-with-confederate-flag-from-shelves/

Walmart to remove items with Confederate flag from shelves
CBS NEWS
June 22, 2015

Play VIDEO -- S.C. pols call to remove Confederate flag

BENTONVILLE, Ark. -- Walmart said Monday that it has begun to take steps to remove all items that promote the Confederate flag from its stores and website.

In a statement from the company, spokesman Brian Nick said Walmart wants to take steps not to "offend anyone with the products that we offer," he said.

"We have a process in place to help lead us to the right decisions when it comes to the merchandise we sell. Still, at times, items make their way into our assortment improperly - this is one of those instances."

Earlier Monday, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse. "This is a moment in which we can say that that flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state."

Controversy surrounding the flag was renewed after the mass shooting of nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church last week. The accused gunman, Dylann Roof, was pictured with a license plate bearing the Confederate flag, which he embraced with racist ideology.




“… and that his attitude towards racism was "truly awakened" by the 2012 Trayvon Martin case, in which Florida man George Zimmerman shot and killed the 17-year-old black teen. …. In a separate interview, former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole said the ideology displayed by Roof "evolves over a long period of time." "Frankly, it goes back to when he was a small child. You develop your coping behaviors. You develop your outlook on life. You develop an attitude towards violence. And all of that evolves to the point where the world is a bad place to live. The world is filled with enemies. You hate people," she said. …. “Brooks called for the country's "democratic and moral leaders" to talk about the racist ideologies and said there should be enough resources for vigorous prosecution and investigation of hate groups. The country must stamp out racism, Brooks said. …. “Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, said Americans have created a context in which white supremacy is considered more of a different viewpoint than something that should be condemned. "This is dangerous, fatal for black people," she said. "I think we need leadership, leadership not only in Congress, leadership in law enforcement, to call this what it is, domestic terrorism. And we have to use all of our tools to get at that."

“NAACP President Cornell William Brooks called for more vigorous investigation and prosecution of hate groups in the United States ….” I am personally delighted to see that a number of major businesses have voluntarily stopped selling any images of the “Dixie flag,” and many citizens across the country are demanding that the flag be removed from any South Carolina government areas. I believe there is a widespread recognition by a great many and perhaps most Americans since Ferguson exploded last autumn, of the pointless and truly vile emotions behind this “conservative” racist uprising of the last year or so – not that it wasn’t hanging around in the shadows of the public mind before now, but that it hadn’t been rampant since the 1960’s Civil Rights movement. That’s when SC put the Dixie flag up, one article said, to support “conservatives.” I know that’s when many Southern Democrats crossed the line and officially became Republicans. The modern day Republican Party is largely formed by racist ideology and rallies behind issues such as “anti-Communist” or the thought control of the religious right. It simply is no longer the Republican Party of General Eisenhower. He was a sensible and benign leader. I miss him very much.

The Trayvon Martin case was shocking to me because that young man did nothing but go to a local grocery store and walk back toward his aunt’s house. I gathered that it wasn’t even an all-white neighborhood, and Martin made every effort to avoid and ignore Zimmerman, who had made it his business to get a gun from his car and follow Martin down the street making aggressive comments to him. He finally got too close and Martin gave the second standard human fear reaction – rather than running he fought back. As he was then getting the better part in the fight, Zimmerman shot him at close range. The court allowed him to get by with a plea of self-defense when he was actually pointlessly harassing the black youth. Zimmerman claimed he was “in fear for his life” because Martin was wearing a “hoodie.”

As a neighborhood watch member Zimmerman was only supposed to call the police and then leave him alone. That is even what the police department told him to do when he called them. Zimmerman had only racist hatred as a reason for doing what he did, yet Dylann Roof was so inspired by this incident that he executed some dozen or so innocent church attendees after they were trusting and generous enough to allow him to sit in their midst and pray with them. What social and mental condition have some of these white people come to that they don’t recognize evil when they start to do it? Ethical decisions are supposed to be learned already by the time a young person reaches the age of 19 or 20. Some of these young folks are simply not mature enough to take an adult place in our society.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/confederate-flags-alabama-capitol/

Confederate flags taken down from Alabama Capitol
AP June 24, 2015

23 PHOTOS -- Places the Confederate flag still flies
Play VIDEO -- Virginia Gov. wants Confederate flag off license plates
Play VIDEO -- Tide turns against Confederate flag

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Four Confederate flags were taken down from the grounds of the Alabama Capitol on Wednesday at the order of Gov. Robert Bentley.

Bentley said he issued the order late Tuesday after ensuring he had the authority to have the flags removed. He said it was important to "honor history," but that could be done without flying the flag on the Capitol grounds.

"It has become a distraction all over the country right now," Bentley said. "Off and on, it has always been a distraction."

Four Confederate flags - the first three official flags of the Confederacy and the square-shaped Confederate battle flag - flew at each corner of an 88-foot-tall Alabama Confederate Monument beside the Alabama Capitol.

State workers take down a Confederate flag on the grounds of the state Capitol June 24, 2015, in Montgomery, Ala.
State workers take down a Confederate flag on the grounds of the state Capitol June 24, 2015, in Montgomery, Ala. AP PHOTO/MARTIN SWANT
An Associated Press reporter watched state employees remove three of the flags and fold them and take them inside the Capitol building before 10 a.m. The fourth already had been removed earlier Wednesday.

Two men who said they were members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization arrived shortly afterward to protest. When a group of black men, including the chief of staff for an Alabama Democrat who planned to introduce a resolution calling for the flags' removal, came to see that the flags had been removed, they spoke and shook hands with the flag supporters.

Calls to remove Confederate symbols that dot the Old South reignited after the massacre of nine people at a black church in South Carolina last week. The white suspect, Dylann Roof, posed in photos displaying Confederate flags and burning or desecrating U.S. flags.

The Confederate flag used to fly over the Alabama Capitol, following a 1963 order from former Gov. George C. Wallace during a fight with the federal government over ending school segregation.

Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, led a fight in the 1990s to remove the rebel banner from the dome. A judge ruled against the state, which appealed. Then-Gov. Jim Folsom in 1993 made a decision that the Confederate flag, which was taken down in 1992 during dome renovations, would not be put back atop the Capitol when those renovations were complete.

Holmes on Tuesday said that he would file a legislative resolution to remove the flags from the Capitol grounds.

"I think most people realize it's divisive," Holmes said on Tuesday. "It has no place on a public building."

Following the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, a bipartisan mix of officials across the country is calling for the removal of Confederate flags and other symbols of the Confederacy from public places.

Here's a look at what's happening and what's being proposed:

Mississippi -- Leaders of the Republican-controlled state are divided on whether to alter the Mississippi flag, a corner of which is made up of the Confederate battle flag. U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker joined state House Speaker Philip Gunn on Wednesday in saying the emblem is offensive and must be removed. Mississippi voters voted 2-to-1 in 2001 to keep the flag. Gov. Phil Bryant has said he supports those election results. Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said Tuesday that he thinks voters should decide on any changes.

The Commercial Dispatch newspaper in Columbus ran a front-page editorial Tuesday, saying that the state flag should change and that the Confederate symbol "represents a disgusting period of our history." It was accompanied by an image of the flag with a black X drawn over it.

Kentucky -- Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that his state of Kentucky must remove a statue of Davis from the state Capitol's rotunda. The statue stands a few paces from that of another native Kentuckian, Abraham Lincoln. McConnell noted that Davis moved to Mississippi, and Kentucky never officially joined the Confederacy. McConnell suggested a better place for the statue would be the Kentucky History Museum.

Republican Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers said Tuesday that he now favors removing the statue, as does the Republican nominee for governor, Matt Bevin. Democratic nominee Jack Conway, the state attorney general, said Wednesday that the statute should be moved to a museum. Earlier, he had said he agreed with Haley's call to remove the battle flag but that he would have to think about whether to remove the Davis statue.

Maryland -- Gov. Larry Hogan's press secretary says the Republican leader opposes the use of the Confederate flag on the state's license plates.

Erin Montgomery said in an email Tuesday that Hogan's office is working with the department of motor vehicles and the attorney general "to address this issue."

North Carolina -- A spokesman for Gov. Pat McCrory says the Republican plans to ask the General Assembly to pass a law that would discontinue the use of the Confederate flag on specialty license plates for the Confederate Veterans. Like those in other states, the plate features the group's logo, which has the flag.

Tennessee -- Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers called for a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and an early leader in the Ku Klux Klan, to be removed from an alcove outside the Senate chambers at the Statehouse. The bust, inscribed with the words "Confederate States Army," has been at the Capitol for decades.

Also, at a Tuesday news conference, Gov. Bill Haslam was asked about the state's Sons of Confederate Veterans specialty license plate, with an image of the Confederate flag in the group's logo. Haslam said he was unaware of the plate but would be in favor of discontinuing it.

Texas -- The University of Texas president said Tuesday that the school will establish a panel of students, faculty and alumni to determine what to do with a statue of Confederacy President Jefferson Davis. Student leaders have asked to have it removed from campus. Earlier in the day, vandals sprayed graffiti on the pedestal to the century-old statue. An online petition recently was launched to have it removed and placed in a museum. But Davis' great-great grandson, Bertram Hayes-Davis, says his ancestor was a statesman with a broad list of accomplishments who's being unfairly demonized.

Also in Texas, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the state was within its rights to refuse to issue personalized license plates showing the Confederate flag. The court rejected a free-speech challenge. The Sons of Confederate Veterans had sought a Texas plate bearing its logo with the battle flag. Similar plates are issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and by Maryland. In Virginia, McAuliffe cited this ruling in his call for banning the flag from plates in his state.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-investigation-finds-whole-foods-is-overcharging-customers/

NYC regulator: Whole Foods routinely overcharges
AP June 24, 2015

Photographs -- New York City's consumer chief said Wednesday Whole Foods supermarkets have been routinely overcharging customers. JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES

NEW YORK - Whole Foods supermarkets have been routinely overcharging customers by overstating the weight of prepackaged meat, dairy and baked goods, New York City's consumer chief said Wednesday.

The price on a package of coconut shrimp at the upscale market was too high by $14.84, said Department of Consumer Affairs Commissioner Julie Menin. A package of chicken tenders was overpriced by $4.85, and a vegetable platter by $6.15, the department said.

"These overcharges are incredibly troubling," Menin said, alleging that they continued even after Whole Foods was informed of the city investigation, which began in the fall. The investigation checked the eight Whole Foods markets then open in the city. A ninth has since opened. In all, the Austin, Texas-based chain has 422 stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

"We have been meeting with Whole Foods for months," the commissioner said, "but we repeatedly found problems that were incredibly pervasive."

In emailed statements, Whole Foods said, "We disagree with the DCA's overreaching allegations." It said the department had made "grossly excessive monetary demands" to settle the dispute, but it would not disclose the amount.

Because the city's investigation of Whole Foods is ongoing, penalties have not yet been assessed, Menin said. Fines for falsely labeling a package can be as much as $950 for the first violation and up to $1,700 for subsequent violations. The department said Whole Foods had thousands of potential violations.

Last year, Whole Foods agreed to pay $800,000 in penalties - and improve pricing accuracy - after an investigation into alleged pricing irregularities in California.

Whole Foods has long battled a reputation for high prices - some derisively call the store "Whole Paycheck" - and it recently announced plans for a new chain of smaller stores with lower prices.

The Consumer Affairs Department said it tested 80 different types of pre-packaged products and found mislabeled weights for each, with overcharges ranging from 80 cents for a package of pecan panko to the $14.84 markup on the shrimp.

The department said the findings suggest that many individual packages may not be weighed at all. In some cases, all the packages of a product were labeled with exactly the same weight when that would be "practically impossible," the department said, as with vegetables and seafood. Vegetable platters, all priced at $20 per package, represented overcharges averaging $2.50, the department said.

"As a large chain grocery store, Whole Foods has the money and resources to ensure greater accuracy and to correct what appears to be a widespread problem," Menin said.

Some tips for consumers from the department:

Check your receipt for accuracy to ensure you were charged advertised prices, for the correct number of items and the correct taxes.
Store ads must be truthful.

Stores must honor their advertised prices and have reasonable quantities of the advertised goods available. If an item is out of stock, ask for a rain check.
Check the scales. Each must have an up-to-date sticker certifying that it has been inspected and judged to be accurate.




“The price on a package of coconut shrimp at the upscale market was too high by $14.84, said Department of Consumer Affairs Commissioner Julie Menin. A package of chicken tenders was overpriced by $4.85, and a vegetable platter by $6.15, the department said. "These overcharges are incredibly troubling," Menin said, alleging that they continued even after Whole Foods was informed of the city investigation, which began in the fall. …. "We have been meeting with Whole Foods for months," the commissioner said, "but we repeatedly found problems that were incredibly pervasive." In emailed statements, Whole Foods said, "We disagree with the DCA's overreaching allegations." It said the department had made "grossly excessive monetary demands" to settle the dispute, but it would not disclose the amount. Because the city's investigation of Whole Foods is ongoing, penalties have not yet been assessed, Menin said. Fines for falsely labeling a package can be as much as $950 for the first violation and up to $1,700 for subsequent violations. The department said Whole Foods had thousands of potential violations. Last year, Whole Foods agreed to pay $800,000 in penalties - and improve pricing accuracy - after an investigation into alleged pricing irregularities in California. …. "As a large chain grocery store, Whole Foods has the money and resources to ensure greater accuracy and to correct what appears to be a widespread problem," Menin said. Some tips for consumers from the department: Check your receipt for accuracy to ensure you were charged advertised prices, for the correct number of items and the correct taxes. Store ads must be truthful. Stores must honor their advertised prices and have reasonable quantities of the advertised goods available. If an item is out of stock, ask for a rain check.”

To be fair to Whole Foods, however, our local grocer Publix was in the news along with some other good name brands for entering the Wrong Price for many products into their computer, so that when you go to check out, the price on your receipt may not match the price on the food package. It’s either very careless or just another form of cheating. I tried for a while to check them all before I left the store, but that really was too time-consuming and tedious and I rarely found a problem. I gave it up for the same reason that I gave up buying a Lotto ticket twice a week. My total lotto winnings over about ten years was a little over $20.00.

I have always been of the opinion that “businessmen” in general are dirty and crooked, not the upstanding and hardworking heroes that the Republican Party tends to portray them as being. My father always stressed checking prices and product quality when you go into a store to buy. A college friend of mine, whose father ran a women’s clothing store, told me once that there was a 100% markup on every item in the store, so when they mark the price way down for sales they are still making a profit. I don’t believe that was because her father was exceptionally unethical, but that business tends to be unethical. In 1993 I took a Business Law course at George Mason University and the professor said that the falsehoods told by businesses are called “puffery” in legal terminology rather than lies, and that the practice is not usually illegal. It’s considered just the way businessmen are allowed to operate. Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the law protects that process.

I have never bought at Whole Foods because it was clearly more expensive than any regular grocery chain, and also because in the 1970s and 80s the generally well-to-do “hippies” just had to have the finest groceries. My husband and I who were simply poor students couldn’t do that. It never occurred to me that the store was lying about the weight of the produce rather than simply charging high prices, though. This clearly goes beyond “puffery” and into the area of fraud.

THURSDAY, jUNE 4, 21Q5

I'm unable to sit down to the computer, due to a severe back problem. Hopefully I will be back in a few weeks. Best to all.


Lucy Warner