I wanna be there
Carolina Naturally is read in 191 countries around the world daily.
Aw, shucks, fo' li'l ol'me? ...
Today is International Beaver Day
Don't forget to visit our sister blog!
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Today in History
| 1652 | The Dutch establish a settlement at Cape Town, South Africa. | |
| 1712 | A slave revolt breaks out in New York City. | |
| 1798 | The territory of Mississippi is organized. | |
| 1862 | General Ulysses S. Grant defeats Confederates at Battle of Shiloh, Tenn. | |
| 1914 | The British House of Commons passes the Irish Home Rule Bill. | |
| 1922 | U.S. Secretary of Interior leases the Teapot Dome naval oil reserves in Wyoming. | |
| 1933 | President Franklin Roosevelt signs legislation ending Prohibition in the United States. | |
| 1943 | British and American armies link up between Wadi Akarit and El Guettar in North Africa, forming a solid line against the German army. | |
| 1945 | The Japanese battleship Yamato, the world's largest battleship, is sunk during the battle for Okinawa. | |
| 1963 | Yugoslavia proclaims itself a Socialist republic. | |
| 1971 | President Nixon pledges a withdrawal of 100,000 more men from Vietnam by December. | |
| 1980 | The United States breaks relations with Iran. | |
| 1983 | Specialist Story Musgrave and Don Peterson make first Space Shuttle spacewalk. | |
| 1990 | John Poindexter is found guilty in the Iran-Contra scandal. |
A Garden under the Stairs
BM Studio, an architectural duo in Escondido, California, designed this beautiful and practical garden. Why not make use of good growing space under a staircase?
Did you know ...
That droughts, wildfire diminish monarch butterfly population
That women make better corporate leaders than men
That Lush Dimbulb thinks half the people on twitter are paid by Democrats
About the woman fired for being homeless
That the major banks seek to overturn tough judicial rulings in mortgage case
About a snivel of breitbrats
North Carolina House Speaker Kills Bill To Create State Religion
By John Celock
North Carolina state Rep. Carl Ford (r-China Grove), a
co-author of a North Carolina legislative proposal designed to establish
a state religion.
House Speaker Thom Tillis (r-Charlotte) announced Thursday afternoon that the bill would not be receiving a vote in the full House, effectively dropping the measure. Loretta Boniti, a reporter for News 14 Carolina, broke the news on Twitter, and it was confirmed in a breaking news alert posted on the home page of wral.com, a Raleigh-based television station. Tillis' decision followed several days of national media attention on the bill, which also said that the state government did not have to listen to federal court rulings and was exempt from the requirements of the First Amendment.
The bill, which was drafted by state Reps. Carl Ford (r-China Grove) and Harry Warren (r-Salisbury), was intended to address an issue in Rowan County, where the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the county commission in an attempt to block commissioners from having a christian rite at the beginning of meetings.
The North Carolina measure responds to the ACLU suit by declaring that each state is "sovereign" and no federal court can prevent a state from "from making laws respecting an establishment of religion." Though Warren, one of the bill's authors, told HuffPost Live that the measure was not seeking to create a state religion, the drafted legislation would clearly allow for such an action.
SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.The North Carolina bill seeks to play the First Amendment both ways. It says that the state is exempted from the establishment clause under the First Amendment, which establishes the "separation of church and state." The clause reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion." But the North Carolina bill asserts that prohibition does not apply "to states, municipalities, or schools," and that North Carolina could establish a state religion. The bill then goes further, portraying this reasoning as a protection of the freedom of religion, including the state lawmakers' right to exercise their own religious beliefs.
In fact, in a series of cases stretching back nearly a century, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does cover state governments. Judicial precedent has held that any such proposals on the establishment of religion must have secular, legislative purpose; cannot inhibit or advance religion; and cannot be "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
An explanation on why Tillis decided to kill the measure was not posted and a Tillis spokesman was not immediately available for comment. The media firestorm regarding the legislation comes as Tillis is considering a bid for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) next year. Tillis was not a co-sponsor of the bill, which originally drew 11 GOP supporters, including Tillis' deputy, Majority Leader Edgar Starnes (r-Hickory) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Justin Burr (r-Albemarle). Three additional repugicans had signed on as co-sponsors since the bill was first introduced on Monday.
How the global hyper-rich have turned central London into a lights-out ghost-town
In an excellent NYT story, Sarah Lyall reports on "lights-out
London" -- the phenomenon whereby ultra-wealthy foreigners (often from
corrupt plutocracies like Kazakhstan and Russia) are buying up whole
neighbourhoods in London, driving up house-prices beyond the reach of
locals, and then treating their houses as holiday homes. They stay for a
couple weeks once or twice a year, leaving whole neighborhoods vacant
and shuttered through most of the year, which kills the local businesses
and turns central London into something of a ghost town.
“Some of the richest people in the world are buying property here as an investment,” [Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the Labour opposition in Westminster Council] said. “They may live here for a fortnight in the summer, but for the rest of the year they’re contributing nothing to the local economy. The specter of new buildings where there are no lights on is a real problem...”
Meanwhile, prices are rising beyond expectation. For single-family housing in the prime areas of London, British buyers spend an average of $2.25 million, Ms. Barnes said, while foreign buyers spend an average of $3.75 million, which increases to $7.5 million if they are from Russia or the Middle East...
The most visible, and also the most notorious, of the new developments is One Hyde Park, a $1.7 billion apartment building of stratospheric opulence on a prime corner in Knightsbridge, near Harvey Nichols, the park and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, which functions as a 24-hour concierge service for residents. Apartments there have been purchased mostly by foreign buyers who hide their identities behind murky offshore companies registered to tax havens like the Isle of Man and the Cayman Islands.
It is rare to see anyone coming to or going from the complex, and British newspapers have been trying since it opened two years ago to discover who lives there. Vanity Fair reported recently that as far as it could discern after a long trawl through records, the owners seem to include a cast of characters who might have come from a poker game in a James Bond movie: a Russian property magnate, a Nigerian telecommunications tycoon, the richest man in Ukraine, a Kazakh copper billionaire, someone who may or may not be a Kazkh singer and the head of finance for the emirate of Sharjah.
How DC insiders launder insider market information for the rich
We already know that Congresscritters make huge bank through insider trading,
exploiting a loophole that lets them place bets on the stock market
based on rules they have yet to announce. But this game-rigging con
isn't limited to elected officials: a whole class of unregulated beltway
insiders make their living by wheedling "political intelligence" (that
is, insider information about upcoming regulations and laws) out of
politicians and their staff, and then selling it on to consultants who
package it up into legal insider trading recommendations for the
hyper-rich.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has released Financial Market Value of Government Information Hinges on Materiality and Timing, a 34-page report on this practice, trying to figure out how pervasive the scam is. They didn't get any great answers:
"The political intelligence industry is flourishing, enriching itself and clients in the stock market, yet the report notes that it could not document who these people are or how much they profit," [Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for government watchdog Public Citizen] said. "Without full transparency of the activity of these political intelligence consultants and their clients, it is nearly impossible to know if they are trading on illegal insider information."
Discouraged Americans leave labor force
She'd already abandoned hope of
getting work in her field, working with the disabled. But she couldn't
land anything else, either — not even a job interview at a telephone call center.
Until she feels confident enough to send out resumes again, she'll get by on food stamps and disability checks from Social Security and live with her parents in St. Louis.
"I'm not proud of it," says Baebler,
who is in her mid-30s and is blind. "The only way I'm able to sustain
any semblance of self-preservation is to rely on government programs
that I have no desire to be on."
Baebler's frustrating experience has become all too common nearly
four years after the Great Recession ended: Many Americans are still so
discouraged that they've given up on the job market.
Older Americans
have retired early. Younger ones have enrolled in school. Others have
suspended their job hunt until the employment landscape brightens. Some,
like Baebler, are collecting disability checks.
It isn't supposed to be this way. After a recession, an improving economy is supposed to bring people back into the job market.
Instead, the number of Americans in the labor force
— those who have a job or are looking for one — fell by nearly half a
million people from February to March, the government said Friday. And
the percentage of working-age adults in the labor force — what's called
the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent last month. It's the lowest such figure since May 1979.
The falling participation rate
tarnished the only apparent good news in the jobs report the Labor
Department released Friday: The unemployment rate dropped to a four-year low of 7.6 percent in March from 7.7 in February.
People without a job who stop looking for one are no longer counted
as unemployed. That's why the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in March
despite weak hiring. If the 496,000 who left the labor force last month
had still been looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would have risen
to 7.9 percent in March."Unemployment dropped for all the wrong reasons," says Craig Alexander, chief economist with TD Bank Financial Group. "It dropped because more workers stopped looking for jobs. It signaled less confidence and optimism that there are jobs out there."
The participation rate peaked at 67.3 percent in 2000, reflecting an influx of women into the work force. It's been falling steadily ever since.
Part of the drop reflects the baby boom generation's gradual move into retirement. But such demographics aren't the whole answer.
Even Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 years old — are dropping out of the workforce. Their participation rate fell to 81.1 percent last month, tied with November for the lowest since December 1984.
"It's the lack of job opportunities — the lack of demand for workers — that is keeping these workers from working or seeking work," says Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. The Labor Department says there are still more than three unemployed people for every job opening.
Cynthia Marriott gave up her job search after an interview in October for a position as a hotel concierge.
"They never said no," she says. "They just never called me back."Her husband hasn't worked full time since 2006. She cashed out her 401(k) after being laid off from a job at a Los Angeles entertainment publicity firm in 2009. The couple owes thousands in taxes for that withdrawal. They have no health insurance.
She got the maximum 99 weeks' of unemployment benefits then allowed in California and then moved to Atlanta.
Now she is looking to receive federal disability benefits for a lung condition that she said leaves her weak and unable to work a full day. The application is pending a medical review.
"I feel like I have no choice," says Marriott, 47. "It's just really sad and frightening"
During the peak of her job search, Marriott was filling out 10 applications a day. She applied for jobs she felt overqualified for, such as those at Home Depot and Petco but never heard back. Eventually, the disappointment and fatigue got to her.
"I just wanted a job," she says. "I couldn't really go on anymore looking for a job."
Young people are leaving the job market, too. The participation rate for Americans ages 20 to 24 hit a 41-year low 69.6 percent last year before bouncing back a bit. Many young people have enrolled in community colleges and universities. That's one reason a record 63 percent of adults ages 25 to 29 have spent at least some time in college, according to the Pew Research Center.
Older Americans are returning to school, too. Doug Damato, who lives in Asheville, N.C., lost his job as an installer at a utility company in February 2012. He stopped looking for work last fall, when he began taking classes in mechanical engineering at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.
Next week, Damato, 40, will accept an academic award for earning top grades. But one obstacle has emerged: Under a recent change in state law, his unemployment benefits will now end July 1, six months earlier than he expected.
He's planning to work nights, if possible, to support himself once the benefits run out. Dropping out of school is "out of the question," he said, given the time he has already put into the program.
"I don't want a handout," he says. "I'm trying to better myself."
Many older Americans who lost their jobs are finding refuge in Social Security's disability program. Nearly 8.9 million Americans are receiving disability checks, up 1.3 million from when the recession ended in June 2009.
Natasha Baebler's journey out of the labor force and onto the disability rolls began when she lost her job serving disabled students and staff members at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., in February 2012.
For six months, she sought jobs in her field, brandishing master's degrees in social education and counseling. No luck.
Then she just started looking for anything. Still, she had no takers.
"I chose to stop and take a step back for a while ... After you've seen that amount of rejection," she says, "you start thinking, 'What's going to make this time any different?' "
Jobs Report Proves Obama Correct About The repugican Sequester Killing Jobs
We’re seeing the first signs of the Sequester effect on job creation with this month’s jobs report.
It isn’t pretty. The modest drop in the unemployment rate to 7.6%
isn’t something to celebrate because the bulk of that number is a result
of people giving up on looking for work.
The 88,000 jobs that were created (excluding farm related jobs) is the lowest number since last June. According to Paul Dales, who is an economist at Capitol Economics in London, when the numbers go below 100,000 it’s time to start worrying.
Just to give some perspective, the economy created 248,000 jobs in February and 148,000 in January, during a time in which there was some hope that repugicans would miraculously come to their senses before the Sequester kicked in.
Credible economists point to the fact that this is just one bad jobs report. We shouldn’t go into panic mode, at least not yet. At the same time, they are saying there are warning signs.
For example, even in its earliest stages, sequestration has had a negative effect on local economies. Think Progress reports: “The automatic spending cuts that went into effect at the start of March are spread out over a host of domestic programs and are having a real impact on communities across the country. Sequestration is cutting jobs, shutting down essential services, and hurting state economies.”
Another disturbing sign is seen in the labor force participation rate which measures how many Americans are either working or looking for work. In March, it dropped to 63.3 percent down from the 63.5 percent in February. Five years ago, the labor force participation rate was 66.1 percent.
In February, President Obama and leading Democrats warned that sequestration would hurt job creation. Here is what Nancy Pelosi said when speaking on the negative effects on the economy with sequestration and a repugican bill that amounts to sequestration on steroids.
According to Pew, “Roughly six-in-ten repugicans, Democrats and independents alike say the sequester will have a major effect on the nation’s economy, and by overwhelming margins all agree that the effect will be negative, not positive.”
The only people who thought the sequester was no big deal, or doesn’t go far enough are conservatives.
Here is what tea party darling Rand Paul said: “Tea party wingnuts say the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over ten years is only a start.”
John Boehner tried to sell his caucus on the “benefits” of Sequester in 2011, before trying to blame the President for the sequester and, of course, advocating more of the same policies that produced the recession.
Moreover, if Boehner truly believes that sequestration is bad, why would he allow a bill that amounts to sequestration on steroids? If the sequester retards economic growth, doesn’t it stand to reason that sequester on steroids will only make things worse?
As Paul Krugman noted we really don’t have a spending problem, despite John Boehner’s huffing and puffing. Spending under President Obama is way down from the days in which repugicans decided to put two wars on the country’s credit card.
Krugman goes on to repeat what he and others have said for some time.
Just to give some perspective, the economy created 248,000 jobs in February and 148,000 in January, during a time in which there was some hope that repugicans would miraculously come to their senses before the Sequester kicked in.
Credible economists point to the fact that this is just one bad jobs report. We shouldn’t go into panic mode, at least not yet. At the same time, they are saying there are warning signs.
For example, even in its earliest stages, sequestration has had a negative effect on local economies. Think Progress reports: “The automatic spending cuts that went into effect at the start of March are spread out over a host of domestic programs and are having a real impact on communities across the country. Sequestration is cutting jobs, shutting down essential services, and hurting state economies.”
Another disturbing sign is seen in the labor force participation rate which measures how many Americans are either working or looking for work. In March, it dropped to 63.3 percent down from the 63.5 percent in February. Five years ago, the labor force participation rate was 66.1 percent.
In February, President Obama and leading Democrats warned that sequestration would hurt job creation. Here is what Nancy Pelosi said when speaking on the negative effects on the economy with sequestration and a repugican bill that amounts to sequestration on steroids.
We’re in this place, in this chamber of the House of Representatives, to represent the American people. We recognize that a thriving middle class is the backbone of our democracy and that we are here to meet the needs of the American people and strengthen that democracy. With the legislation that is before us today, we undermine, we undermine all of those efforts. So, with the sequestration, which is reaffirmed in this legislation, it would go down a path that is harmful to our economy, and harmful to our national security. Don’t take it from me, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, told Congress last week on more than one occasion that the cuts of this size, made this quickly, would hurt hiring and incomes, slow the recovery, cost the economy 750,000 jobs and keep deficits larger than otherwise.Here is what the President said back in February:
“The impact of this policy won’t be felt overnight, but it will be real,” Mr. Obama said at the Newport News Shipbuilding company in Newport News, Va. “The sequester will weaken America’s economic recovery, it will weaken our military readiness, and it will weaken the services people depend on.”In fact, most of America anticipated that the sequester effect on the economy and, with it, job creation would be harmful.
According to Pew, “Roughly six-in-ten repugicans, Democrats and independents alike say the sequester will have a major effect on the nation’s economy, and by overwhelming margins all agree that the effect will be negative, not positive.”
The only people who thought the sequester was no big deal, or doesn’t go far enough are conservatives.
Here is what tea party darling Rand Paul said: “Tea party wingnuts say the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over ten years is only a start.”
John Boehner tried to sell his caucus on the “benefits” of Sequester in 2011, before trying to blame the President for the sequester and, of course, advocating more of the same policies that produced the recession.
“The president’s policies continue to make it harder for Americans to find work,” he said in a statement. “To help grow our economy and expand opportunity for all Americans, Republicans passed a balanced budget that addresses our spending problem, unleashes North American energy like Keystone, and fixes our broken tax code, and voted to replace the president’s sequester with smarter cuts and reforms.”My mother used to have a saying about people like John Boehner. He’s trying to sit on two chairs with one behind. On one hand, he’s arguing that the savage cuts that came with sequester are hurting job growth and despite having sold sequester in 2011. On the other hand, he’s arguing we need more of same savage cuts and tax cuts for the rich that hurt job creation to create more jobs. Gee, why didn’t we think of that before? Oh wait, we did and it didn’t work over the 30 years we did try it. It begs the question, why would it work now.
Moreover, if Boehner truly believes that sequestration is bad, why would he allow a bill that amounts to sequestration on steroids? If the sequester retards economic growth, doesn’t it stand to reason that sequester on steroids will only make things worse?
As Paul Krugman noted we really don’t have a spending problem, despite John Boehner’s huffing and puffing. Spending under President Obama is way down from the days in which repugicans decided to put two wars on the country’s credit card.
That deficit has declined from 5.6 percent of potential GDP in 2011 to 2.5 percent in 2013 — that’s 3 percent of GDP, which is a lot of austerity. Not all of that cut has even hit yet — the sequester isn’t in the macro numbers yet — but the rise in the payroll tax is very clearly driving the latest bad numbers, which show big declines in retail.Indeed, the report shows that retail jobs are down, which stands to reason. More people are working for lower wages be it as a result of being underemployed or as a result of furloughs because of the sequester. When there is less money to spend, there is less demand for retail goods. When there is less demand it means jobs are cut, or at the very least, they are not created.
Krugman goes on to repeat what he and others have said for some time.
This is really stupid; as long as we’re at the zero lower bound, austerity is a huge mistake. Yet for what, the third time since 2009, all discussion in Washington has turned away from job creation to deficits (even though the debt problem has largely faded away) and the need for an early Fed exit from stimulus (even though unemployment remains high and inflation low).While economists have a more refined understanding of the intricacies involved, one need only do some reading about the effects of austerity on Europe’s economy to realize that savage cuts to government spending when the economy is weak retard economic growth, kill jobs and grow poverty. It’s only a matter of common sense to realize that even more savage cuts to government in America will produce exactly the same results – on steroids.
Lie by omission
From Daily Kos...
It was four score and seven years ago on Thursday that repugican Speaker of the House John Boehner once again proved what a dishonest puke he really is, this time when quoting Abraham Lincoln on the danger of government debt:
"[Government debt] is a system not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute," Lincoln warns his countrymen in Congressman Lincoln. "An individual who undertakes to live by borrowing, soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next no one left to borrow from -- so must it be with a government."
... but somehow Boehner managed to leave this part out:
By this means a new national debt has been created, and is still growing on us with a rapidity fearful to contemplate -- a rapidity only reasonably to be expected in time of war. This state of things has been produced by a prevailing unwillingness either to increase the tariff or resort to direct taxation. But the one or the other must come.
It was four score and seven years ago on Thursday that repugican Speaker of the House John Boehner once again proved what a dishonest puke he really is, this time when quoting Abraham Lincoln on the danger of government debt:
"[Government debt] is a system not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute," Lincoln warns his countrymen in Congressman Lincoln. "An individual who undertakes to live by borrowing, soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next no one left to borrow from -- so must it be with a government."
... but somehow Boehner managed to leave this part out:
By this means a new national debt has been created, and is still growing on us with a rapidity fearful to contemplate -- a rapidity only reasonably to be expected in time of war. This state of things has been produced by a prevailing unwillingness either to increase the tariff or resort to direct taxation. But the one or the other must come.
John Boehner Confesses That He Rejected Obama’s Budget Offer Without Reading It
Politicians are wont to repeat, often excessively, a policy meme or
buzzword in hopes it catches on and becomes part of the public’s lexicon
as an identifying trait of a political party or particular candidate’s
agenda. Whether it is to demonstrate consistency of intent, or just to
drive a point home, offering the same policy recommendations as a be
all, end all, fix for anything is why America is stuck in an austerity
trance with little to no hope of recovering anytime soon. President
Obama is a masterful tactician when it comes to reiterating propositions
he knows repugicans will reject out of hand, and with news of his
symbolic budget proposals due out next week, he is repeating the same
plan he offered repugicans in the past and as sure as the Sun rises in
the East, Speaker John Boehner rejected them immediately revealing he
certainly did not have time to read them in their entirety.In the President’s last plan to avert the fiscal cliff, he called for
major health care cuts by reducing payments to drug companies and
hospitals, recommended changing COLA measures tied to inflation which
raises taxes and slowly cuts Social Security benefits for some
recipients, replaced repugicans’ sequestration cuts, and proposed
additional spending focusing on infrastructure improvements. His new
budget proposal, which is strictly symbolic, is a nearly identical
reiteration of his last offering with some incorporation of his policies
in his State of the Union address. Liberals are rightly upset over the
shift to chained-CPI for Social Security cost of living adjustments, but
they were equally incensed when he offered them during fiscal cliff
negotiations and their tantrums were wasted because as expected, repugicans rejected his entire plan.
The repugicans have reiterated their own rejection of the President’s plans because they include new revenue, spending on infrastructure to create jobs, and do not eliminate the New Deal programs they have lusted to demolish for 75 years. Critics of the President’s budget claimed that including cuts to Social Security would give repugicans a talking point that even Obama sees the necessity to reduce the deficit by slashing “entitlements,” and they have a point because Boehner said “it included only modest entitlement savings,” and that “if the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes.” Boehner is not interested in shoring up Social Security or he would be first in line to lift the cap on earnings and put the Trust on track to solvency for several generations. The repugicans plainly want the program eliminated to create a permanent underclass of elderly Americans dependent on Wall Street for their retirement or die, and to seize the trillions in the Trust’s coffers to hand out as tax cuts for the rich.
There were other aspects of the President’s budget proposal that drove Boehner to reject it without reading it besides new revenue that are reiterations of repugican policies over the past four years. The repugicans hate the notion of spending to create jobs through infrastructure improvements, spending on education, and replacing their sequestration cuts with more measured reductions in other areas. the repugicans worked too hard to get the sequester cuts that for nine years and nine months will slash education spending, kill jobs, decimate anti-poverty programs, and hurt the economy to settle for any replacement short of imposing an enhanced version of Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity budget that piles on debt due to massive tax cuts for the rich. They also have stated in no uncertain terms that infrastructure repairs are off the table to maintain America’s pathetic standing as one of the poorest infrastructures in the developed and developing world, and the idea of putting Americans to work goes against everything repugicans have stood for over the past four years.
The President knows offering a carrot to repugicans in the hopes of a so-called grand bargain is an exercise in futility, but with the American people watching, he is shining a spotlight on repugican intransigence and allegiance to the rich. By offering an olive branch in the form of chained-CPI for Social Security, repugicans can no longer say the President is afraid of his base, or unwilling to meet repugicans half way to solve the nation’s phony deficit crisis, and their immediate rejection to compromise further portrays them as the real problem in Washington. Social Security and Medicare are extremely popular programs, and repugican insistence that they be eviscerated to give more tax cuts to corporations and the rich far exceed the President’s offer to change the COLA methodology. It is also worth noting, again, that the Center for America Progress, no wingnut belief tank, recommend chained-CPI as a revenue raising long term fix for Social Security, but with repugicans bound and determined to reject any proposal that fails to end Social Security and Medicare in their entirety, and rejection of any new revenue to create jobs and repair the decrepit infrastructure, or replace the job-killing sequestration cuts, it is doubtful there will be a grand bargain, or any bargain, between the President and repugicans. Besides, the President’s budget proposal is only symbolic because in America, Congress makes the budget and as long as repugicans run this country, any budget that does not kill jobs, kill safety nets, and end public education, is doomed to fail regardless who proposes it.
The repugicans have reiterated their own rejection of the President’s plans because they include new revenue, spending on infrastructure to create jobs, and do not eliminate the New Deal programs they have lusted to demolish for 75 years. Critics of the President’s budget claimed that including cuts to Social Security would give repugicans a talking point that even Obama sees the necessity to reduce the deficit by slashing “entitlements,” and they have a point because Boehner said “it included only modest entitlement savings,” and that “if the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes.” Boehner is not interested in shoring up Social Security or he would be first in line to lift the cap on earnings and put the Trust on track to solvency for several generations. The repugicans plainly want the program eliminated to create a permanent underclass of elderly Americans dependent on Wall Street for their retirement or die, and to seize the trillions in the Trust’s coffers to hand out as tax cuts for the rich.
There were other aspects of the President’s budget proposal that drove Boehner to reject it without reading it besides new revenue that are reiterations of repugican policies over the past four years. The repugicans hate the notion of spending to create jobs through infrastructure improvements, spending on education, and replacing their sequestration cuts with more measured reductions in other areas. the repugicans worked too hard to get the sequester cuts that for nine years and nine months will slash education spending, kill jobs, decimate anti-poverty programs, and hurt the economy to settle for any replacement short of imposing an enhanced version of Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity budget that piles on debt due to massive tax cuts for the rich. They also have stated in no uncertain terms that infrastructure repairs are off the table to maintain America’s pathetic standing as one of the poorest infrastructures in the developed and developing world, and the idea of putting Americans to work goes against everything repugicans have stood for over the past four years.
The President knows offering a carrot to repugicans in the hopes of a so-called grand bargain is an exercise in futility, but with the American people watching, he is shining a spotlight on repugican intransigence and allegiance to the rich. By offering an olive branch in the form of chained-CPI for Social Security, repugicans can no longer say the President is afraid of his base, or unwilling to meet repugicans half way to solve the nation’s phony deficit crisis, and their immediate rejection to compromise further portrays them as the real problem in Washington. Social Security and Medicare are extremely popular programs, and repugican insistence that they be eviscerated to give more tax cuts to corporations and the rich far exceed the President’s offer to change the COLA methodology. It is also worth noting, again, that the Center for America Progress, no wingnut belief tank, recommend chained-CPI as a revenue raising long term fix for Social Security, but with repugicans bound and determined to reject any proposal that fails to end Social Security and Medicare in their entirety, and rejection of any new revenue to create jobs and repair the decrepit infrastructure, or replace the job-killing sequestration cuts, it is doubtful there will be a grand bargain, or any bargain, between the President and repugicans. Besides, the President’s budget proposal is only symbolic because in America, Congress makes the budget and as long as repugicans run this country, any budget that does not kill jobs, kill safety nets, and end public education, is doomed to fail regardless who proposes it.
Obama Offers repugicans A Deal on Social Security That He Knows They’ll Never Accept
By tying his Social Security cuts to tax increases, President Obama
has offered repugicans the same deal that he has been proposing for
years. It is also a deal that will repugicans will never in a million
years accept.
Reuters put the offer of cuts to Social Security in the lead, but the twist in in the paragraph below, “However, the president will only accept these spending cuts if congressional repugicans, for their part, agree to higher taxes, the official added. The President’s budget proposal is due to be laid out in full on Wednesday.”
The New York Times revealed that the President is using the offer of Social Security cuts to break the repugican resistance to tax hikes, “Congressional repugicans have dug in against any new tax revenues after higher taxes for the affluent were approved at the start of the year. The administration’s hope is to create cracks in repugicans’ antitax resistance, especially in the Senate, as constituents complain about the across-the-board cuts in military and domestic programs that took effect March 1.”
The problem is that President Obama has been proposing this deal but repugicans have been turning down the deal for the last two years. What the White House is doing is a clever bit of political strategy. They are using something that repugicans really want (Social Security cuts) to force repugicans into making a choice on whether or not to defend raising taxes on the wealthy. The president knows that his budget is DOA, so he is using it to push his broad overall goal of raising taxes.
Obama is proving to be just as dug in on the tax issue as repugicans are.
Chained CPI is ridiculously bad policy. The left should be vigilant against President Obama’s infatuation with it. However, with Independent Bernie Sanders, Harry Reid, and a group of Senate Democrats promising that any deal that contains cuts to Social Security will not pass the Senate, I think chained CPI faces a difficult path to passage.
President Obama is playing the long game. His real motive isn’t to cut Social Security but to break the repugican will on tax increases.
This is why the 2014 election is so important. If Democrats take back the House and keep the Senate, President Obama won’t have to do a “grand bargain.” He will be able to push for a new stimulus and tax increases. By voting next year for candidates who promise to protect needed programs, you can do your part to protect Social Security.
President Obama has been playing a game with repugicans where he dangles Chained CPI out there then takes it back.
I would suggest that what the President is doing is a carrot and stick tactic, but what Obama is really offering repugicans is a carrot and being whacked on the head with a spiked aluminum baseball bat.
If repugicans agree to raise taxes again, their cabal will be fractured and destroyed. They understand that taxes are the only issue holding them together. This is why Obama’s offer is dead in the water. It is also why some on the left need to stop looking at only one tree (Social Security) and examine the whole forest (the potential for long term victory.)
Be strong, be vigilant, and say no to Chained CPI, but also know that Obama doesn’t want to cut Social Security. The president is trying to break the repugican will on taxes.
Reuters put the offer of cuts to Social Security in the lead, but the twist in in the paragraph below, “However, the president will only accept these spending cuts if congressional repugicans, for their part, agree to higher taxes, the official added. The President’s budget proposal is due to be laid out in full on Wednesday.”
The New York Times revealed that the President is using the offer of Social Security cuts to break the repugican resistance to tax hikes, “Congressional repugicans have dug in against any new tax revenues after higher taxes for the affluent were approved at the start of the year. The administration’s hope is to create cracks in repugicans’ antitax resistance, especially in the Senate, as constituents complain about the across-the-board cuts in military and domestic programs that took effect March 1.”
The problem is that President Obama has been proposing this deal but repugicans have been turning down the deal for the last two years. What the White House is doing is a clever bit of political strategy. They are using something that repugicans really want (Social Security cuts) to force repugicans into making a choice on whether or not to defend raising taxes on the wealthy. The president knows that his budget is DOA, so he is using it to push his broad overall goal of raising taxes.
Obama is proving to be just as dug in on the tax issue as repugicans are.
Chained CPI is ridiculously bad policy. The left should be vigilant against President Obama’s infatuation with it. However, with Independent Bernie Sanders, Harry Reid, and a group of Senate Democrats promising that any deal that contains cuts to Social Security will not pass the Senate, I think chained CPI faces a difficult path to passage.
President Obama is playing the long game. His real motive isn’t to cut Social Security but to break the repugican will on tax increases.
This is why the 2014 election is so important. If Democrats take back the House and keep the Senate, President Obama won’t have to do a “grand bargain.” He will be able to push for a new stimulus and tax increases. By voting next year for candidates who promise to protect needed programs, you can do your part to protect Social Security.
President Obama has been playing a game with repugicans where he dangles Chained CPI out there then takes it back.
I would suggest that what the President is doing is a carrot and stick tactic, but what Obama is really offering repugicans is a carrot and being whacked on the head with a spiked aluminum baseball bat.
If repugicans agree to raise taxes again, their cabal will be fractured and destroyed. They understand that taxes are the only issue holding them together. This is why Obama’s offer is dead in the water. It is also why some on the left need to stop looking at only one tree (Social Security) and examine the whole forest (the potential for long term victory.)
Be strong, be vigilant, and say no to Chained CPI, but also know that Obama doesn’t want to cut Social Security. The president is trying to break the repugican will on taxes.
Cancer Patients Facing Death Thanks to the repugican Sequester
While wingnuts whine about White House tours and look for praise
over the great sacrifice of ending their tax payer subsidized haircuts,
Americans are feeling the pinch of sequester in their ability to
survive.For some people the sequester means making ends meet harder and yes
they are suffering in ways that doesn’t matter to the corporatists in
the repugican cabal. As noted, repugicans in Tennessee call their version of a starve the poor policy an incentive to improve school performance.
Even before the Sequester, people on Medicaid were more likely to have chronic illnesses simply because there is a long established nexus between poverty and chronic health problems. Policies like the one in Tennessee will only increase illness and do nothing to improve school performance.
As Gallup‘s data shows, the poorest among us continue to be prone to chronic health problems.
It isn’t surprising that as poverty goes up illness trickles down much faster than prosperity.
According to a study in Kentucky released in February:
Cuts to Medicaid mean that someone who is most in need of medical care will fall through the holes in the safety net that only got larger with the sequester. It’s bad enough that people who suffer from chronic ailments directly related to poverty will fall through these holes. However, the suffering that comes with Sequester doesn’t end there.
The Washington Post reports that cancer clinics are turning away thousands of cancer patients because of the Sequester. This isn’t limited to one or a few states. It’s happening across the country.
Oncologists say that because of the Sequester cuts to Medicaid they can’t administer expensive and lifesaving chemotherapy and stay afloat at the same time. They have to choose between providing patients with life-saving chemotherapy and staying in business to at least save someone’s life.
For patients, this means trying to get the treatment they need to survive at a hospital. Granted it’s more expensive, which is ironic since the alleged objective of cutting spending is to reduce costs.
There is no way around it. This means there are cancer patients who simply won’t get treatment. I lost both of my parents to cancer, but I remain forever thankful that they had access to treatment for cancer along with the depression and cluster of other things that are part of the package. They didn’t have to hunt for a hospital to treat them because some lawmakers were too cheap and greedy to give a damn about the people they were hired to represent. There is no diplomatic way to express the contempt I have for politicians who place a higher priority on handouts to corporations and people who not only have more than they will ever need, but more than their children and grandchildren will ever need than on the lives of parents, grandparents or children who don’t have enough to provide the bare necessities of life. To my way of thinking, this isn’t merely bad policy. It’s criminal. It amounts exterminating people simply because they are poor, or at least not rich enough to buy a corrupt politician.
There is no way around it. While repugicans whine about cuts to small portions of the handouts they and their friends get it isn’t as if their lives depend on traveling by private jet or getting a subsidized haircut. It isn’t as if paying some taxes will mean a difference between survival and a shorter life expectancy for the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and others who think the world revolves around them.
The same cannot be said about cuts that literally take the food out of children’s mouths.That only perpetuate the social, economic and health consequences of increased poverty or the inevitable death of a cancer patient because chemotherapy wasn’t accessible.
There is nothing moral about it and there’s nothing about it that resembles the christianity that wingnuts claim to believe in.
Even before the Sequester, people on Medicaid were more likely to have chronic illnesses simply because there is a long established nexus between poverty and chronic health problems. Policies like the one in Tennessee will only increase illness and do nothing to improve school performance.
As Gallup‘s data shows, the poorest among us continue to be prone to chronic health problems.
It isn’t surprising that as poverty goes up illness trickles down much faster than prosperity.
According to a study in Kentucky released in February:
“While changes in our healthcare delivery system may provide more healthcare opportunities for low income Kentuckians, these results show how vital a strong economy, and jobs that pay well, are to our population’s health.”Before the repugican cabal’s policies gave us the great recesson, Steven Wolf conducted a similar study in Virginia. In 2006, he warned:
“More than half remained uninsured specifically because they simply couldn’t afford it, the CDC said. Research consistently highlights the negative link between reduced income and worsening health — as salaries drop, individuals tend to be more stressed, and generally lead less-healthy lifestyles.Simply put, there is a nexus between poverty and chronic health issues. There is also a nexus between jobs that provide a living wage and having a healthy way of living. I refuse to call it a healthy lifestyle, because that infers that people in poverty actually have the luxury of choosing expensive nutritious foods over affordable less nutritious ones. It suggests that there is enough flexibility in the resources of someone who lives in poverty to not only get nutritious foods but enough of them. People who are starving are less likely to exercise. Contrary to the repugican cabal’s rhetoric, living in poverty means constant stress be it worrying about feeding the kids or if you’ll have a roof over your head next week.
These people are going to develop diseases at a higher rate and the health care system is going to feel the brunt of it,”
Cuts to Medicaid mean that someone who is most in need of medical care will fall through the holes in the safety net that only got larger with the sequester. It’s bad enough that people who suffer from chronic ailments directly related to poverty will fall through these holes. However, the suffering that comes with Sequester doesn’t end there.
The Washington Post reports that cancer clinics are turning away thousands of cancer patients because of the Sequester. This isn’t limited to one or a few states. It’s happening across the country.
Oncologists say that because of the Sequester cuts to Medicaid they can’t administer expensive and lifesaving chemotherapy and stay afloat at the same time. They have to choose between providing patients with life-saving chemotherapy and staying in business to at least save someone’s life.
For patients, this means trying to get the treatment they need to survive at a hospital. Granted it’s more expensive, which is ironic since the alleged objective of cutting spending is to reduce costs.
One study from actuarial firm Milliman found that “chemotherapy delivered in a hospital setting costs the federal government an average of $6,500 more annually than care delivered in a community clinic.”Even if the twisted logic of making things more expensive actually cuts spending, there is the added problem that since most Medicare patients receive their treatments at oncology clinics instead of hospitals, it’s doubtful that hospitals will have the ability to take these patients on.
There is no way around it. This means there are cancer patients who simply won’t get treatment. I lost both of my parents to cancer, but I remain forever thankful that they had access to treatment for cancer along with the depression and cluster of other things that are part of the package. They didn’t have to hunt for a hospital to treat them because some lawmakers were too cheap and greedy to give a damn about the people they were hired to represent. There is no diplomatic way to express the contempt I have for politicians who place a higher priority on handouts to corporations and people who not only have more than they will ever need, but more than their children and grandchildren will ever need than on the lives of parents, grandparents or children who don’t have enough to provide the bare necessities of life. To my way of thinking, this isn’t merely bad policy. It’s criminal. It amounts exterminating people simply because they are poor, or at least not rich enough to buy a corrupt politician.
There is no way around it. While repugicans whine about cuts to small portions of the handouts they and their friends get it isn’t as if their lives depend on traveling by private jet or getting a subsidized haircut. It isn’t as if paying some taxes will mean a difference between survival and a shorter life expectancy for the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and others who think the world revolves around them.
The same cannot be said about cuts that literally take the food out of children’s mouths.That only perpetuate the social, economic and health consequences of increased poverty or the inevitable death of a cancer patient because chemotherapy wasn’t accessible.
There is nothing moral about it and there’s nothing about it that resembles the christianity that wingnuts claim to believe in.
This American Life's report on kids and disability claims riddled with factual errors
Many of the claims in both half of the report are debatable, and many, many more and simply not true. A Media Matters report called This American Life Features Error-Riddled Story On Disability And Children systematically debunks many of the claims in the story, which NPR has modified slightly since posting online (though NPR and Ira Glass continue to stand behind the story).
FACT: Medical Evidence From Qualified Professionals Is Required To Determine EligibilityThe Media Matters report cites high-quality sources like the GAO throughout, and makes an excellent case for a general retraction of this report by NPR. I hope that they, and Glass, will reconsider their endorsement of this report.
Government Accountability Office: "Examiners Rely On A Combination Of Key Medical And Nonmedical Information Sources." A Government Accountability Office report found that disability determination services (DDS) examiners determined a child's medical eligibility for benefits based on a combination of school records and medical records, and that if medical records in particular were not available, they were able to order consultative exams to review medical evidence:
DDS examiners rely on a combination of key medical and nonmedical information sources -- such as medical records, effects of prescribed medications, school records, and teacher and parent assessments -- in determining a child's medical eligibility for benefits. Several DDS officials we interviewed said that when making a determination, they consider the totality of information related to the child's impairments, rather than one piece of information in isolation. Based on our case file review, we estimate that examiners generally cited four to five information sources as support for their decisions in fiscal year 2010 for the three most prevalent mental impairments.
[...]
If such evidence is not available or is inconclusive, DDS examiners may purchase a consultative exam to provide additional medical evidence and help them establish the severity of a child's impairment. [Government Accountability Office, 6/26/12]
The Human Costs of the War on Social Security and Medicare
With friends like the repugican cabal, seniors don’t need enemies. Americans work their entire lives to provide for their families. Throughout that period we contribute to Medicare and Social Security in the name of providing a safety net for the golden years of our lives. Yet, the repugican cabal continues to call these programs “entitlements” as if they were an undeserved handout (unlike the bonuses that executives get for destroying our environment, the economy or both.)
We already know about the despised Ryan plan that seeks to replace Medicare with coupons that won’t come anywhere near covering the costs of premiums, co-pays and all those other wonderful goodies that come with the private health care “system.”
It’s bad enough that corporatists seek to line insurance providers pockets with policies that really amount to a Ponzi scheme. The trend is toward creating a monopoly of high deductible plans. In other words, it’s about paying premiums to insurance companies simply because they exist while paying for more of our healthcare needs as if we didn’t have any insurance.
As noted by Wendal Potter: corporate health insurance isn’t about providing people with options to suit their needs, nor is it about providing the security that comes with insurance.
Even in 2008, the last year I worked for an insurance company, my colleagues in the sales division were encouraging employers to go “total replacement,” which means eliminating all choices except high-deductible plans. Insurers have long used proprietary “studies” supposedly proving that making people pay more out of pocket for medical care will “incentivize” them to lead healthier lives.It is about increasing profits by shifting more of the costs for previously insured healthcare to the consumer. In other words, you pay for healthcare insurance, plus you pay the costs for your healthcare yourself. There are corporatists who will tell you that the more you pay out of pocket, the more likely you are to live a healthier life style. Of course, you’re not supposed to notice that earning enough to feed your family, have shelter etc. would also contribute to living a healthier life style. However, I digress. This is more of the same mindset that sees healthcare generally and health insurance especially as just another business.
I guess that’s why hospitals inflate costs for over the counter items It doesn’t have a thing to do with increasing profits. It’s all in the name of promoting a healthy lifestyle. That’s as truthful as the claim that voter suppression is about preserving election integrity.
Except when factored in with other corporatist policies, a healthier life is the impossible dream at any age and more than impossible for seniors. True enough, part of leading a healthier life means making responsible choices like staying away from smoking. It also means having enough nutritious food to eat and having shelter from the elements - both things are increasingly elusive to Americans stuck in low paying jobs, let alone people who want but can’t get work. For seniors, it means going hungry for longer periods, as they see a bigger cut of their income going to healthcare costs.
Even if we went with the notion that high deductibles will encourage people to make healthy life style choices, I don’t understand how anyone can accept a “system” in which the purpose of healthcare “insurance” is profit, rather than providing healthcare from which we would have a healthier (and more productive) society.
If people who don’t earn enough to lead healthier lives are charged more for lacking the financial resources to lead healthier lives, that means more people will be less healthy. We don’t need to try this out to see where it leads. We only need to look at what poverty does to life expectancy in developing countries, or look to the correlation between increased poverty and illness along with the effects on life expectancy in this country compared to the days when we had a vibrant middle class.
Obamacare does improve the situation since insurance companies are now prohibited from discriminating against people with “pre-existing conditions” albeit with premiums costing 3 times more than a “normal” person. Naturally this goes with insurance policies that operate on the premise of denying as many healthcare services as possible. Combine that with a high deductible healthcare plan, and the reality is that access to healthcare will only exist on paper.
Yes, it means that young people can continue on their parents’ insurance until they are twenty-six. Given that more young people are working for minimum wage and without benefits, they won’t have to pay insurance companies for the benefit of paying their healthcare costs out of pocket.
This is the system that Paul Ryan’s coupons would partially buy for seniors. In other words, seniors would see a reduction in their income thanks to the chained CPI and more of that money will go to health “insurers” that only provide “insurance” with hefty deductibles.
I’ll grant that of the possible ways to steal Social Security to line the pockets of corporate America, the chained-CPI appears to be the most benevolent. However, the chained CPI is a sleeping zombie that penalizes people for having the audacity to live longer. The cuts get deeper, meaning less money for the increasingly high costs of coupon care, plus the increasing cost of paying for the healthcare costs aren’t insured under healthcare “insurance”. It also means that seniors, especially women, will go hungry more days per month as they get older. After all, silly Americans, if you’re lucky enough to live to be a senior, you’ll see that you are not “entitled” to food or access to “the best healthcare system in the world.”
As noted by JOHN WOJCIK of People’s World
The “Chained CPI” is touted as taking into account that seniors cut back when prices rise.”They are actually saying,” Johnson wrote, “that because people have to cut back to cat food, then they should only be getting enough to pay for cat food. The elites love the ‘Chained CPI’ because it helps keep the government from raising taxes on the rich to pay back what was borrowed from Social Security and used to give tax cuts to the rich.The chained CPI will hit every senior hard, but especially women. According to the National Women’s Law Center, the chained CPI means if you’re 70 you’ll go hungry 1 day a month, but if you commit the crime of living until you’re 95 you’ll be rewarded with hunger 13 days out of every month.
When you combine cuts to social security with the private health insurance system, and hospitals padding costs for basics like aspirin and gauze pads, seniors will have much more to worry about than if the Air traffic controller will be there to guide their private jet, or if they have to pay full price for a haircut.
Robert Reich explains:
Even Social Security’s current inflation adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on the elderly. That’s because they spend 20 to 40 percent of their incomes on health care, and health-care costs have been rising faster than inflation. So why adopt a new inflation adjustment that’s even stingier than the current one?If the best healthcare system in the world doesn’t get you, the chained CPI eventually will. You’ll be glad to know, however, that your sacrifice means the corporate elite will be able to build more sweatshops.
Widespread, illegal debtors' prisons in Ohio
A new ACLU report called The Outskirts of Hope
(PDF) documents the rise of illegal debtors prisons in Ohio. A majority
of municipal and mayors' courts (an unregulated and rare system of
courts only permitted in two states) surveyed by the ACLU routinely
imprison people for their inability to pay fines, a practice banned in
both the US and state constitution. 20 percent of the bookings in the
Huron County Jail are "related to failure to pay fines."
Taking care of a fine is straightforward for some Ohioans — having been convicted of a criminal or traffic offense and sentenced to pay a fine, an affluent defendant may simply pay it and go on with his or her life. For Ohio’s poor and working poor, by contrast, an unaffordable fine is just the beginning of a protracted process that may involve contempt charges, mounting fees, arrest warrants, and even jail time. The stark reality is that, in 2013, Ohioans are being repeatedly jailed simply for being too poor to pay fines.The report documents heartbreaking cases, like Samantha Reed and John Bundren, a couple with a nine-month-old who were both ordered to pay fines they can't afford. John diverts whatever seasonal/part time wages he earns to Samantha's fines so she can look after their baby, while he goes to jail for ten-day stretches for failure to make payments. They are effectively indigent, but are not given access to counsel when they appear in court over their debts.
The U.S. Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code all prohibit debtors’ prisons. The law requires that, before jailing anyone for unpaid fines, courts must determine whether an individual is too poor to pay. Jailing a person who is unable to pay violates the law, and yet municipal courts and mayors’ courts across the state continue this draconian practice. Moreover, debtors’ prisons actually waste taxpayer dollars by arresting and incarcerating people who will simply never be able to pay their fines, which are in any event usually smaller than the amount it costs to arrest and jail them.
Jail cracks down on banana and orange-peel smoking
Inmates inside the Androscoggin County Jail in Auburn, Maine, are losing
their peels. After discovering that some inmates were smoking dried
banana and orange peel, administrators have ordered kitchen staff to
peel bananas before they're served to inmates. The jail has halted the purchase of oranges.
Inmates have been using smuggled lighters or jury-rigged electrical outlets to spark their fruity cigars. Because smoking is not allowed in jails, any smoking material is considered contraband.
"It's been a problem for six or eight months," said Lt. Jeff Chute, the jail's assistant administrator. "It started with bananas." During a routine check, guards discovered a tobacco-like smell and traced it to the charred peels. "They're doing it to get some kind of high, but all my research says there is none," Chute said. "It doesn't work."
When the supply of bananas stopped, smokers turned to oranges. "These inmates have all day, every day, to think this stuff up," Chute said. Any inmate found to be smoking fruit - or anything else - faces punishment that could include seclusion or loss of good time credits on a sentence.
Inmates have been using smuggled lighters or jury-rigged electrical outlets to spark their fruity cigars. Because smoking is not allowed in jails, any smoking material is considered contraband.
"It's been a problem for six or eight months," said Lt. Jeff Chute, the jail's assistant administrator. "It started with bananas." During a routine check, guards discovered a tobacco-like smell and traced it to the charred peels. "They're doing it to get some kind of high, but all my research says there is none," Chute said. "It doesn't work."
When the supply of bananas stopped, smokers turned to oranges. "These inmates have all day, every day, to think this stuff up," Chute said. Any inmate found to be smoking fruit - or anything else - faces punishment that could include seclusion or loss of good time credits on a sentence.
Knee-driving man caught texting with both hands in car with drugs and a 3-year-old in backseat
Two Mississippi men were arrested for drug possession after police in
Alabama caught one of them "double texting" - sending messages with a
phone in each hand - while driving, police said.
Dandre Moore, 19, and Dartavious Moore, 22, had a car loaded with pot and pills and a 3-year-old toddler in the backseat when they were pulled over while driving through George Wallace Tunnel in Mobile on Tuesday.
Dandre was behind the wheel "double texting and driving with his knees," Mobile police spokeswoman Lori Myles said. Police searched the car and found a prescription bottle with nearly 400 pills of oxycodone, another bottle containing pills of Xanax, $5,000 in the glove compartment and an ounce of marijuana in Moore's underwear.
The Moores were booked into Mobile County Metro Jail. The toddler was released along with two women who were also in the car. Dandre boasted to officers that he'd been "double texting" while driving since he was 15.
Dandre Moore, 19, and Dartavious Moore, 22, had a car loaded with pot and pills and a 3-year-old toddler in the backseat when they were pulled over while driving through George Wallace Tunnel in Mobile on Tuesday.
Dandre was behind the wheel "double texting and driving with his knees," Mobile police spokeswoman Lori Myles said. Police searched the car and found a prescription bottle with nearly 400 pills of oxycodone, another bottle containing pills of Xanax, $5,000 in the glove compartment and an ounce of marijuana in Moore's underwear.
The Moores were booked into Mobile County Metro Jail. The toddler was released along with two women who were also in the car. Dandre boasted to officers that he'd been "double texting" while driving since he was 15.
Hundreds of vehicles lit up remote Peruvian airstrip for emergency night-flight
Their lights blaring in the night, hundreds of vehicles lined an unlit
airstrip in a jungle region of Peru so an emergency medevac plane with
three very sick patients could take off.
All three survived after the 300-odd drivers of motorcycles, cars and auto rickshaws heeded a call on Wednesday night from a radio station to race to the 800-metre airstrip in Contamana, in one of Peru's poorest regions.
The airstrip is not equipped for nocturnal flights because it has no lights. The patients were a woman and her newborn, both with serious problems after delivery, and a man with a tropical disease.
"We have always been people with a heart," said Adolfo Lobo, the radio presenter who put out the call for help. Contamana, a town of 26,000, has a hospital with no equipment for emergency situations and the airport is rudimentary.
All three survived after the 300-odd drivers of motorcycles, cars and auto rickshaws heeded a call on Wednesday night from a radio station to race to the 800-metre airstrip in Contamana, in one of Peru's poorest regions.
The airstrip is not equipped for nocturnal flights because it has no lights. The patients were a woman and her newborn, both with serious problems after delivery, and a man with a tropical disease.
"We have always been people with a heart," said Adolfo Lobo, the radio presenter who put out the call for help. Contamana, a town of 26,000, has a hospital with no equipment for emergency situations and the airport is rudimentary.
The Human Tower Festivals Of Catalonia
The Curious Tale of Mexico's Most Peculiar Pottery
The tiny town of Ocumicho in the Mexican state of Michoacán is the source for the increasingly popular ceramic diablitos, or devils, in peculiar and even ridiculous scenes. They can be traced back to one artist who designed many of them in the 1960s.
The women of Ocumicho built molds of various base shapes, which were then differentiated with smaller clay embellishments, like spouts or handles, and finished with colorful glazes. By the 1950s, Ocumicho craftswomen mostly produced bird-shaped whistles and figurine banks, which they would sell at the local markets.Vicente's story did not end happily, but his assistants and fans continued making the diablitos. They became his legacy, and the signature artworks of the village of Ocumicho. Read the whole story and see more diablitos at Collector's Weekly.
“But there was this one pivotal character named Marcelino Vicente,” says Orr. “Marcelino was the last of 11 or 12 children, all boys,” she continues, “and many townspeople claim that his mother wanted a baby girl, so she dressed him in girl’s clothing. Growing up, he was also really interested in what was considered ‘women’s work,’ which was making pottery, and was totally mocked by the men for doing this. He was a little bit of a renegade.”
Ocumicho was an extremely poor and isolated village, so it was highly unusual for individuals to step out of the prescribed gender roles. Claudia B. Isaac, who analyzed the gender division in Ocumicho in 1996, wrote that, “Although no one I spoke with directly verified that Marcelino was gay, many talked disparagingly of his reluctance to fulfill traditional male roles.”
Despite their prejudices, the town’s female potters recognized Vicente’s gift for working with clay, and he progressed from small whistles and banks to larger sculptural pieces featuring the devil characters he grew so fond of. These diablitos were an unlikely icon in such a conservative religious community; most locals associate the devil with bad luck, and are reluctant to bring diablitos into their homes. Yet when Vicente finally took his wares to the tianguis, and spread them out on a blanket for sale, the wacky diablitos were a hit.
Strong Hints Of Dark Matter Detected By Space Station
Physicists announced last Wednesday that they have discovered the most convincing evidence yet of the existence of dark matter. Members of an international team gathered at Nasa in Washington and Cern in Switzerland to report their findings, which come from a $2bn particle detector mounted to the International Space Station.
The Most Ridiculous Scene in Jurassic Park
What do paleontologists think about the movie Jurassic Park? Like most professionals seeing a movie that's close to home, they spot a lot of inaccuracies, but are overall pleased to have a movie about their subject. Paleontologists can deal with the fantasy of viable dino DNA, and they can forgive the dinosaurs without feathers, but what really makes them cringe is the odd depiction of what they actually do.
In the most outrageous scene in the story, a field crew quickly brushes sand off a Deinonychus skeleton as if the dinosaur were a dusty curio.Recovering dinosaur bones from the earth is a exacting, painstaking (yet rewarding) process. Brian Switek tells us what it's really like at Slate.
I wish that digging dinosaurs were as easy as Jurassic Park made it look. I really do. The “raptor” fossil—called Velociraptor in the film, but really a Deinonychus to paleo pedants such as myself—that Grant and Sattler’s team exposes is buried under the thinnest coating of sand. And the complete, articulated skeleton is so sturdy that one of the field assistants can stick his grubby hands right into the dinosaur’s nasal cavity and flick out the sand. Watch the scene carefully. It’s the only time I know of that someone picking a dinosaur’s nose has ever been shown in a feature film.
Stilt Fishing
In Tangalle, Sri Lanka, fishermen sit on benches out in the surf. Kimberley Coole, a travel photographer, caught beautiful pictures of these men at work. You can view more photos of them and other scenes from Sri Lanka at the link.
Lack of pet adoptions blamed on black dog discrimination
Black dogs are so unpopular in Saskatchewan, Canada, they're being sent
to British Columbia for a better chance of being adopted. Debbi Lehner,
manager of the Prince Albert SPCA in Saskatchewan, says black dogs are
often passed over for adoption in favour of lighter-coloured animals.
"They just pass right by them," said Lehner. "We do get some comments: 'No, I don’t want a black dog.' A lot of times reasons aren’t given, that's just their preference." Black dog syndrome, or black dog bias, is a phenomenon recognized by some veterinarians and dog shelters.
It's believed some potential owners might find lighter-colored dogs more attractive. Some might also associate the color black with misfortune, similar to the common superstition surrounding black cats. Noted dog psychologist Stanley Coren said black dog bias is rooted in culture and based on our human psychological response to color. "Black is associated with the notion of strong, perhaps violent, perhaps evil," he said.
Lori Chortyk, spokesperson for the Vancouver SPCA, says black dog syndrome is less of a problem in B.C., but black animals in general will often stay in shelters longer than potential pets of any other color. "We really try to help people look past color or any other physical trait and really look at what is the personality that is going to match best in your home?" Chortyk said. The SPCA says potential pet owners should base their decisions on the temperament of the animal, rather than on color and looks.
"They just pass right by them," said Lehner. "We do get some comments: 'No, I don’t want a black dog.' A lot of times reasons aren’t given, that's just their preference." Black dog syndrome, or black dog bias, is a phenomenon recognized by some veterinarians and dog shelters.
It's believed some potential owners might find lighter-colored dogs more attractive. Some might also associate the color black with misfortune, similar to the common superstition surrounding black cats. Noted dog psychologist Stanley Coren said black dog bias is rooted in culture and based on our human psychological response to color. "Black is associated with the notion of strong, perhaps violent, perhaps evil," he said.
Lori Chortyk, spokesperson for the Vancouver SPCA, says black dog syndrome is less of a problem in B.C., but black animals in general will often stay in shelters longer than potential pets of any other color. "We really try to help people look past color or any other physical trait and really look at what is the personality that is going to match best in your home?" Chortyk said. The SPCA says potential pet owners should base their decisions on the temperament of the animal, rather than on color and looks.
Icefish Bleeds Clear Blood
The reason, say experts at Tokyo Sea Life Park, is that the Ocellated Ice Fish has no hemoglobin, making it unique among vertebrates the world over.
Hemoglobin is the protein found in every other animal with bones. It is what makes blood red and is the agent that carries oxygen around the body. [...]
Researchers believe the fish can live without hemoglobin because it has a large heart and uses blood plasma to circulate oxygen throughout its body.
Eyeball on Tadpole's Tail
For the experiment, the team surgically grafted “eye primordia” from donor tadpole embryos onto host embryos, 95 percent of which grew eyes on their tails.NatGeo's Weird & Wild Blog has the story: Here.
The team then used red and blue LEDs to condition the tadpoles to associate red light with a mild electric shock.
Consequently, both tadpoles with normal eyes and those with ectopic eyes developed an aversion to red light and learned to avoid red-lit areas—meaning that the tadpoles with tail “eyes” could see. In contrast, a control group of eyeless tadpoles did not learn to avoid red light.
The spine is known to transmit all kinds of sensory information throughout the body, but the 64,000-eyeball question is how the brain recognizes the signals from the far-flung ectopic eyes for what they are. [...]
“What is really interesting is how the brain knows it is visual data,” said Levin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
