|
Somebody needs to tell U.S. Deputy Atty. Gen. James M. Cole about the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the State respectively, or to the people." Many legal experts say that means if the US Constitution doesn't give Uncle Sam the power to regulate marijuana, then that power is reserved for the state governments and the people. Could anybody tell me what part of the US Constitution gives Uncle Sam the power to regulated marijuana or any other drug??? Or has their been an amendment, like the 18th Amendment that gave the Feds the power to regulate liquor, that gives Uncle Sam the power to regulate marijuana. But don't expect the US Supreme Court to understand that simple logic. http://www.latimes.com/local/marijuana/la-me-attorney-general-marijuana-20141017-story.html California needs stronger marijuana regulation, federal official says By Timothy M. Phelps contact the reporter California should strengthen its regulation of the medical marijuana industry if the state wants to avoid federal intervention, U.S. Deputy Atty. Gen. James M. Cole said Thursday in an interview with The Times. Cole, who announced Thursday that he is leaving the No. 2 job at the Justice Department, said he was proud of his efforts to take a softer approach to enforcing federal marijuana laws. A year ago, Cole sent a memo to all U.S. attorneys, including several in California who had aggressively targeted medical marijuana facilities, telling them to ease up on marijuana prosecutions in states where it was legal. But in the interview, Cole said that states should still have a strong regulatory system in place for the use and sale of marijuana, something he said California lacks. "If you don't want us prosecuting [marijuana users] in your state, then get your regulatory act together," he said. Cole added that California must do a better job of stopping marijuana growth on federal lands. Unlike most other states that have legalized marijuana in some form, California has no statewide regulatory regimen, leaving counties and cities to create a hodgepodge of rules and protections. Attempts to get marijuana regulation through the state Legislature have failed, but activists are hoping to get an initiative on the 2016 ballot. The impending departure of Cole, who for nearly four years has been the day-to-day boss of the department, adds to a growing leadership vacuum at the federal government's top law enforcement agency. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced last month that he would leave as soon as a successor is confirmed, though the Obama administration has so far not announced a replacement. At least half a dozen other top positions at the Justice Department, including the associate attorney general, the No. 3 job, are currently filled with acting appointees. Cole said he was proud of his initiation of a project to encourage nonviolent prisoners serving long drug sentences to apply for a presidential commutation, and of the prosecution of Credit Suisse Bank and individual Swiss bankers for helping U.S. citizens evade taxes. He also has been closely involved in Holder's "smart on crime" initiative to reduce the prison population and the large proportion of African Americans in federal prisons. Cole said he expects to leave in early January, after someone has been chosen to take his place on a permanent or acting basis.
More of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our religious leaders, government masters and police??? Murrieta Mayor Alan Long - I'm not drunk that's medical alcohol!!! OK, I made that up but Murrieta Mayor Alan Long probably gave the kiddies a lame excuse along those lines. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-murrieta-mayor-dui-20141017-story.html Murrieta mayor says he wasn't drunk, apologizes to injured teens By Veronica Rocha Murrieta Mayor Alan Long was arrested Thursday on suspicion of seriously injuring four high school students while driving drunk, police said. The Murrieta high school students, who are 14 to 17 years old, suffered moderate to major injuries and were transported to area hospitals. Long, 44, of Murrieta, was driving south on Jefferson Avenue toward Lily Avenue in a full-sized truck about 8:18 p.m. when he crashed into the rear of the students' vehicle, according to a police statement. Police said Long, who is also a battalion chief with the Anaheim Fire Department, showed "signs and symptoms consistent with alcohol impairment." He was taken into custody after failing a series of sobriety field tests, police said. Long’s attorney, Virginia Blumenthal, insisted that the mayor's blood-alcohol level was “well below” the legal limit. She also said the Long rendered aid to the students at the scene and expressed expressed “deep concern for the safety and well-being of those" who were injured. “He extends his sincere apologies for this accident to each of them and to their families as well as to the residents of the city of Murrieta,” his attorney said. Long was elected in November 2010 with the "highest number of votes," according his biography on the city's website. In July, Long became a prominent defender of protests that blocked federal officials from housing some immigrant detainees, including unaccompanied children, at a facility in the city. For breaking news in Los Angeles and throughout California, follow @VeronicaRochaLA. She can be reached at veronica.rocha@latimes.com.
Enjoy screwing up stuff??? You will love working for the GOVERNMENT!!!! "impenetrable scheduling system that allows only 155 appointments per day statewide despite estimates that more than 150,000 people are eligible" Reminds me of when I bought a car in Los Angeles. I called the DMV to make an appointment to transfer the title of the car and they told me it would be 6 WEEKS before I could go to the local DMV in LA and do the paper work. My cube mate was a member of AAA and he told me I could join AAA for $50 and transfer the title the same day. I paid AAA $50 and was in and out of the office within an hour and had transferred the title to me. They charged me the same price for the title transfer as the People's Republic of California would have. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-colorado-drivers-licenses-20141018-story.html Demand outpaces driver's licenses for immigrants in Colorado By Jenny Deam For Cristina Chavez it has become a middle-of-the-night ritual. For the last two months, after a long shift of cleaning offices, the 33-year-old who is in this country illegally logs onto her computer about 1 a.m., trying for her first driver's license in America. But each time the result is the same: no appointment available. On Aug. 1, Colorado became the 11th state to allow immigrants like Chavez to get driver's licenses. The 2013 state law, heralded as historic for its bipartisan support, was billed as a way to make roadways safer because those living here illegally would have to pass driving tests and carry insurance. "It's like they are trying to force a fire hose worth of demand through a garden hose worth of supply. - Denver immigration attorney Hans Meyer Since then, however, the program has been mired in a pile of woes, including a frustrating and often impenetrable scheduling system that allows only 155 appointments per day statewide despite estimates that more than 150,000 people are eligible. Denver immigration attorney Hans Meyer describes these people as "stuck in licensing purgatory." "The reality is that many people are going to have to wait for years," he says. "It's like they are trying to force a fire hose worth of demand through a garden hose worth of supply." Officials acknowledge they may have underestimated the interest and urgency of applicants, but that only adds to Chavez's worry. "I'm scared. I have to drive to get to work, to get groceries, to take care of my son," she says. Ten years ago she entered the country illegally from Mexico. She hates driving without a license and hates the panic she feels when she passes a police car, knowing a traffic stop could mean deportation and separation from her young son, who is a citizen born in this country. "We need to be together. We are a family." She knows dozens of others who, like her, have been unable to get appointments despite months of trying. The true number is unknown. Between Aug. 1 and Oct. 10, about 8,000 appointments were successfully made. So far, 6,701 people have been issued 4,131 licenses, learner's permits and ID cards, says Daria Serna, communications director for the Colorado Department of Revenue. Of those appointments, there were more than 1,200 no-shows. Others failed the tests or did not have the required documentation, such as a utility bill proving they lived in Colorado the previous two years and a passport from their home country. An appointment calendar for each of the participating DMV offices displays only three months at a time, although applicants can also call to try to book an appointment during regular business hours. If no appointment times are available, an operator will encourage them to try again, Serna says. Only five of 56 Division of Motor Vehicles offices, however, are set up to handle the special licensing process: Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins and Grand Junction. One big stumble came last month when a computer glitch sent invalid licenses to hundreds of those who thought they had navigated the difficult process. The state has asked those who got these licenses to return them. Now, as the November election nears, the political climate surrounding the new law has turned chilly. Bob Beauprez, the Republican gubernatorial candidate who once supported the law, vows to repeal it if elected. Meanwhile, some Latino groups have threatened to withdraw their support to reelect Gov. John Hickenlooper because they say the Democrat has grown too quiet and done too little to help a program he once championed. "I'm sitting this one out," activist Patricia Ramirez says of the governor's race. "They are all for supporting us when they want our vote. But now, they don't love us, we don't love them." She says the delays and glitches in the system have bred mistrust. The 60-year-old with the grass-roots group Licenses For All is a U.S. citizen but feels a kinship with those in the country illegally. "I'm so embarrassed. I worked so hard to talk people into applying for licenses. It takes a lot for someone who is undocumented, someone who has spent years hiding, to suddenly walk into a government office and say, 'Here I am.'" Ramirez and others wonder whether the delays are a symptom of dwindling political interest. "It's like fishing in a lake that doesn't have any fish," Ramirez says. "It's a system that was set up to fail." Not so, say state officials and lawmakers. Though sympathetic to the frustration some may feel, they say any problems are growing pains that can be fixed with tweaks to the law and more funding next year. The original proposal allocated $855,686 for implementation, but by the time the bill reached the governor's desk that amount was slashed to $436,291. "The process is working. Not as fast as I would like, but it is working, and those people who have gone through the process are very happy," says state Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, a Democrat from a racially diverse district in the northern suburbs of Denver and one of the original sponsors. He would like to see offices in rural or mountain towns eventually be equipped to handle requests. But for now he worries that if Latinos skip voting in the tight governor's election it could tip the balance to Beauprez, which would put the law in jeopardy. Chris Ward, fiscal note manager for the Colorado Legislative Council, is aware of the complaints and is sympathetic, but he thinks the conspiracy theories are out of line: "I don't think there was some plan to keep people from getting licenses, but it may seem like that is happening." Instead, there was always a "built-in expectation that not everyone would apply in the beginning," he says. The state predicted about 30,000 to 40,000 of the 150,000 eligible would apply in the first year — an estimate he believes is on track. Chavez is less sure. "There are a lot of people who don't like us," she says. But she is not giving up. "I will keep trying. I have to." national@latimes.com Let me get this straight LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is going to have a tough time deciding if should fire racist, crooked LAPD cop Frank Lyga??? If you ask me it's a no brainier to fire the guy. But I doubt if LAPD Chief Charlie Beck will agree with me on that. And of course that the problem we have with our police and government today, they are both corrupt to the core. It ain't "Government of the People, by the People, for the People". It's Government of the People, by the elected officials and appointed bureaucrats, for the elected officials, appointed bureaucrats and special interest groups that helped them get into power". http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-remarks-20141018-story.html Decision on LAPD detective's discipline poses major test for Beck By Kate Mather, Richard Winton contact the reporters The veteran Los Angeles police detective took the floor at a training class for fellow officers and let loose an expletive-laden rant. Frank Lyga claimed that he drove his Jeep in the carpool lane at 100 mph, called a prominent black civil rights attorney an "ewok," quipped that a female LAPD captain had been "swapped around a bunch of times" and described a lieutenant as a "moron." Then he recalled his fatal 1997 shooting of a fellow officer, an incident that sparked racial tensions within the department because Lyga is white and the slain officer was black. "I could have killed a whole truckload of them, and I would have been happy doing it," Lyga recounted telling an attorney representing the officer's family. I could have killed a whole truckload of them, and I would have been happy doing it. - LAPD Det. Frank Lyga, on shooting a fellow officer Nearly a year after Lyga gave his controversial training lecture, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck must choose whether to follow a disciplinary panel's recommendation issued this week to fire the detective or reduce his punishment and let him keep his job. The decision presents the chief with one of his biggest tests since his August reappointment to a second five-year term and is likely to reignite criticism of how he handles officers' discipline. Beck has clashed with his civilian bosses and rank-and-file officers on the issue, with some accusing him of being inconsistent. On Friday, black civil rights advocates called on Beck to fire Lyga, saying that the narcotics detective's comments were racist and sexist and should not be tolerated. Meanwhile, Lyga's supporters say that he is genuinely remorseful, and note that Beck recently rejected another disciplinary panel's recommendations to fire a well-connected officer who was caught uttering a racial slur. "This is a police chief's nightmare," said Merrick Bobb, a policing oversight expert. Lyga's comments, he said, were particularly troubling because they were made in a teaching setting, where he was presented as a role model to fellow officers. Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who heads the South Los Angeles-based Community Coalition, said he hopes that Beck quickly adopts the board's recommendations to fire Lyga. A lesser punishment, Harris-Dawson said, would threaten community relations that the LAPD has sought to improve in the last decade. "The community isn't likely to accept anything less," he said. Lyga, 57, has said he was deeply sorry for his remarks. His attorney said the detective read a statement to the three-person board of rights that heard the case, saying that his comments "were very wrong" and "hurtful to many people as well as the department." "I have no excuse for what I did," he said, according to the statement, which the lawyer provided The Times. "The fact that I allowed myself to lose control will stay with me for the rest of my life." After the disciplinary panel's recommendations are forwarded to Beck, he has 10 days to make his own decision on what punishment the officer will face, a department spokesman said. The chief then has five days to notify the Police Commission, the civilian board that oversees the LAPD. Cmdr. Andrew Smith said Beck was out of town Friday. Smith declined to comment on Lyga's case, saying that matters of officers' discipline are confidential under state law. Beck was blasted earlier this year over his decision to suspend instead of fire Officer Shaun Hillmann, who was caught on tape uttering a racial slur outside a Norco bar and later denied it to his supervisors. Critics accused the chief of giving Hillman favorable treatment because the officer's father and uncle worked for the department. Lyga's remarks were recorded by someone attending the Nov. 15 training session, which focused on search warrants. The class ended early, so Lyga had time to answer officers' questions before the next speaker arrived, according to his attorney, Ira Salzman. Salzman said the department did not accuse Lyga of racism and that Lyga denied his remarks were racist. But the disciplinary board found that two of the officer's comments were racial, he said. In one, Lyga called attorney Carl Douglas, who is African American, a "little ewok." The other comment involved the 1997 shooting in which Lyga killed Kevin Gaines, who was off-duty. Lyga was working an undercover narcotics operation when he became involved in a traffic dispute with Gaines, according to police accounts. Neither man apparently knew the other was a police officer. LAPD Det. Frank Lyga has apoligized for his remarks. He'd said of killing a fellow officer in 1997, "I could have killed a whole truckload of them, and I would have been happy doing it.” (KTLA) On the recording, Lyga said he did not regret shooting Gaines and made the remark about killing "a whole truckload of them." Lyga frequently chuckles and others listening also laugh. Salzman said Lyga later explained that he should have said he would have shot anybody who was trying to kill him. Douglas, who represented Gaines' family and was mocked by Lyga in the recording, said he welcomed the board of rights' recommendation. "All fair-minded Angelenos who desire a competent law enforcement department should rejoice at this news," Douglas said. Lyga's attorney said he would send a letter to Beck next week asking for leniency. He said there was no evidence that his client unfairly enforced the law during his 28-year career. "Frank uttered bad words," Salzman said. "His 28 years ought to count for something more." More than 30 colleagues and associates, some from federal law enforcement agencies, wrote letters to the disciplinary board on Lyga's behalf. Many commended his work ethic and fairness on the job. "I have never seen Detective Lyga deal with citizens or suspects from any race or creed unprofessionally," wrote LAPD narcotics Det. John Hong. "Once the cuffs were on, he always treated the suspects with dignity and professionally." In his comments to the board, Lyga said his shooting of Gaines had affected him deeply and said he had recently started undergoing therapy "to gain insight into why I lost control over my speech that day." "Since I was 5 years old, I only ever wanted to be a police officer. I love my job and I would do it for free," he said. "The fact that I am here today faced with losing the profession that I have built over the past 28 years [is] truly devastating to me." kate.mather@latimes.com richard.winton@latimes.com
Michael and Daniel Flora from East London Usually I only post articles about crooked pigs beating up innocent people or crooked politicians screwing us as they always do. But I figured some of you may be interested in these cute kids in London. I initially saw the article in Teleguia which is a free Spanish language magazine I read every week. But I googled on the kids and found this article in a London newspaper. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2779863/Meet-teeny-twinstagram-trendsetters-Three-year-old-brothers-internet-hit-pose-variety-stylish-matching-outfits.html Meet the teeny twinstagram trendsetters: Three-year-old brothers become internet hit as they pose in a variety of stylish matching outfits By Lucy Waterlow for MailOnline Published: 13:10 EST, 3 October 2014 | Updated: 07:19 EST, 4 October 2014 They're stylish, cool, confident in front of the camera... and only three-years-old. Meet identical twins Michael and Daniel Flora from East London, who have become an internet hit after their mother, Jane, started posting pictures of them in their best dress on Instagram. She said the brothers have enjoyed being dressed in matching outfits since they were a just over year old and have developed a flair for fashion. Then they are not shy about posing in front of the camera with the ease of a Burberry model. Jane said: 'The boys definitely have developed an interest in fashion, whenever you dress them up they would use the words "mummy can we strike a pose". Too cool for school (and not old enough yet): The twins are only three-years-old She added: 'They love smart outfits. If they are dressed up in a shirt and blazer, you can immediately see them slip into character and start posing with their hands in their pockets. 'They have great fun experimenting with new styles.' At the time of writing, the twins had more than 33,470 followers on their page, called 'Two Yung Kings'. Jane, who owns and runs their Instagram account, said her sons came up with their own nicknames as they refer to one another as 'King One' and 'King Two'. Proving double denim can work: No wonder the trendsetters have thousands of Instagram followers They are a natural in front of the camera, looking both cute and cool as they pose in their fashionable outfits. And it's not just online that the young trendsetters are attracting attention. Jane said: 'Whenever we go out I can see people staring, because they are intrigued by their outfits. They get lots of compliments and people even ask to have photos with them.' Jane told MailOnline that they haven't been approached by any modelling agencies yet - but given the boys' style and poise, it is surely only a matter of time.
If you ask me this government regulation seems to be hurting the consumers of Arizona by creating a monopoly on ambulance services and driving up prices. That sure sounds what MPP wants to do in it's effort to legalize marijuana. Create a government monopoly that gives Andrew Myers and the members of his Arizona Dispensary Association a government monopoly on growing and selling recreation marijuana. Andrew Myers at the July 2014 Phoenix NORML meeting said that when the free market kicks in medical marijuana should drop from it's current $300 an ounce price to a measly $200 an ounce. Of course if we didn't have any government regulation on marijuana, which gives Andrew Myers and the members of his Arizona Dispensary Association a government monopoly on growing and selling medical marijuana, I don't think pot would cost more then $2 a pound, yes, that's $2 a pound, not ounce. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/17/ambulance-company-sues-state-seeks-offer-cheaper-service/17399629/ Ambulance company sues state, seeks to offer cheaper service Craig Harris, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:01 p.m. MST October 16, 2014 A Phoenix transportation company is suing the Arizona Department of Health Services to obtain a non-911 ambulance license, which the business owner says would create competition in Maricopa County and save patients hundreds of dollars. ABC Ambulance filed its lawsuit in April after ADHS Director Will Humble and an administrative-law judge denied a "certificate of necessity" license to the company. Such a license is needed in Arizona for ambulance companies to enter state-regulated markets. The company sought the license to allow it to provide interfacility and non-emergency ambulance services in portions of Maricopa County and Apache Junction. Currently, only Rural/Metro Corp. provides private, non-911 ambulance services in Maricopa County. Neal Thomas, ABC Ambulance's owner, said true competition for services is needed to give consumers better pricing. He argues in ABC's lawsuit that the state abused its discretion in not granting the license and that its decision and that of the administrative judge were arbitrary and not based upon "substantial evidence." Humble, through his spokeswoman, declined an interview request to discuss the subject. Scottsdale-based Rural/Metro, which emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year, opposes ABC Ambulance's license request. Thomas, who runs another business that transports individuals with behavioral-health issues, estimates he has spent close to $1 million in legal and consulting fees fighting the state. He doesn't plan to back down. "My feeling is there's still a huge need," Thomas said. "It just doesn't make sense that the system is saying 'no' to what we want to provide. We have been at it for three years. How do you walk away when you know you are right?" Court records show that Thomas could provide ambulance services at rates of $483 to $521, while Rural/Metro charges rates of $643 to $901. "There clearly needs to be better pricing," Thomas said. John Karolzak, Rural/Metro's vice president of operations, said figures for his company are higher because they are blended rates that include 911 services, something Thomas doesn't plan to offer. Karolzak said that because private ambulance services are state-regulated, a company that could lose business is allowed to intervene and keep out competition. "The reason it's called a certificate of need is an applicant who wants to get into the ambulance business has to show that a provider is not meeting the needs of the community. They have the burden of proof," Karolzak said. Court records show that ABC Ambulance was unable to prove there was a public necessity for another company in Maricopa County. And ABC Ambulance failed to show it had the "resources or was fiscally competent" to provide services. Karolzak said Thomas is trying to "cherry-pick" or "skim" business from Rural/Metro by providing only daytime, non-911 service. Karolzak added that Rural/Metro has served the Greater Phoenix area since 1948 and has invested heavily in technology and equipment to serve the public. "It's not that our organization doesn't welcome competition," Karolzak said. "It's the fact that the applicant was unable, in their case, to meet what the statutes say." Thomas first applied for a certificate of necessity in April 2011, and hearings were held before administrative-law Judge Thomas Shedden in October 2012 and February 2013. In December 2013, the law judge recommended a denial of ABC Ambulance's application, and in March of this year, the ADHS issued a final order against ABC Ambulance. ABC's lawsuit against the state is before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen. The parties have through mid-December to file legal briefs as a precursor to a ruling.
As you grow up the government implies that the Social Security taxes you and your employer pay are like putting money into a bank account and you get it back plus interest when you retire. That's mythology. Social Security is a tax and nothing more. There are no set benefits for your Social Security taxes, and when you retire, the government will decide at that time what amount of money to give you. Currently the government takes all the Social Security taxes you pay and spends them on other stuff. Some of that stuff is paying people who have retired and are currently receiving Social Security. Those taxes are not placed in a savings account or invested in anything for your future retirement. I have read articles over the years that say you would get a better rate of return on your Social Security taxes if you put them into a lowly fixed rate savings account at a bank. http://www.azcentral.com/story/robertrobb/2014/10/17/tobin-let-socialsecurity-go-broke/17462581/ Tobin says let Social Security go broke Robert Robb, columnist | azcentral.com 4:56 p.m. MST October 17, 2014 In Arizona's First Congressional District, Republican Andy Tobin is attempting to beat up incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick over Social Security. According to Tobin, in a recent debate Kirkpatrick expressed support for increasing the wage cap on Social Security contributions and changing the inflation measure used to adjust benefits. Tobin vows never to raise the retirement age, cut Social Security benefits or increase Social Security taxes. It's easy to demagogue Social Security and say what you are against. But what you are against also defines what you are for. And here's what Tobin's three big Social Security No's means he is for. Social Security taxes already produce less than what is paid out in benefits. Benefits are currently being paid partially through interest on general treasury IOUs to Social Security from the days when the system was running a surplus. In a few years, it will require also repaying the principal to cover benefits. At that point the general treasury will owe Social Security close to $3 trillion. The only way to pay what is owed to Social Security will be to issue replacement general obligation debt. So, Tobin is in favor of increasing the national debt by $3 trillion. The Social Security trustees estimate that the IOUs will be fully redeemed by 2034. At that time, Social Security taxes will only be enough to cover about 75 percent of benefits owed. If nothing is done, benefits will be cut by that amount. So, Tobin's three big Social Security No's means that he favors letting Social Security go broke and cutting benefits for anyone currently under the age of 47 by roughly a quarter. Increasing the wage contribution cap is a very bad idea. The cap currently applies to both contributions and benefits. If the cap is lifted for both, there's little net saving to the system. If it is lifted only for contributions, that is the equivalent of a large income tax increase and would have a devastating effect on capital formation. Changing the inflation measure, on the other hand, is a first-rate first step toward making the system more financially secure. Economists generally agree that the current measure overstates inflation. Changing the measure for the future doesn't "cut" anyone's benefits. It simply makes future increases more in line with actual cost-of-living changes and marginally slows down the rate at which the system goes broke. The Social Security system as currently constituted is unsustainable. At this point, being willing to consider even bad ideas is better than sticking your head in the sand, which is where Tobin has firmly planted his. Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com. Follow him on Twitter at @RJRobb.
Sometimes I wonder when our government schools have time to educated the children. They seem to be more interested in micro-managing the kids lives and doing politically correct rubbish like this. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/17/boys-dressed-women-school/17433861/ Boys dressed like women asked to leave school Drew Mikkelsen , KING-TV, Seattle 9:22 a.m. MST October 17, 2014 RANDLE, Wash. – When students at White Pass Junior and Senior High School in Washington state were told to dress like their favorite celebrities, organizers likely expected Miss America and Nicki Minaj to be on someone's list. But two boys who wore those two costumes were given a choice by their principal: change or go home. The sophomores chose to go home. "If they really wanted Spirit Week, why punish somebody for being spirited?" asked 15-year-old Chandler Krueger, who dressed as Minaj, a pop music star. Superintendent Chuck Wyborney has not investigated what happened, but said after reviewing district policies, "If it happens again, we'll handle it differently." At least 10 boys came to school Thursday wearing women's clothes to show support for their classmates. Girls also dressed like boys. No one was asked to change their clothes. "I feel like I did teach people a lesson," said Mason Mudge, who dressed like Miss America.
Arizona gay marriage: Couples get married, celebrate I am not gay, but I support gay marriage. If you ask me marriage should be a contract between people, not something you have to get permission from the government to do. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/17/arizona-gay-marriage-legal-couples-react/17435571/ Arizona gay marriage: Couples get married, celebrate Anne Ryman, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:40 p.m. MST October 17, 2014 Karen Bailey and Nelda Majors, a couple for nearly 57 years, were among the first to get a marriage license Friday in downtown Phoenix after a federal judge ruled that Arizona must allow same-sex couples to marry. "It feels wonderful. Look at it," said Bailey, 75, showing off the freshly printed license as she and Majors emerged from a Maricopa County court clerk's office. Right behind them were David Larance, 36, and Kevin Patterson, 31, who were married within minutes of receiving their license outside an office of the county clerk of the Superior Court. Patterson was in such a rush that he arrived from the gym without the wedding ring for his spouse. The pastor who performed the ceremony, the Rev. John Dorhauer, quickly slipped off his own ring to use as a substitute. Across Arizona, court clerks took the historic step of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Licenses were quickly updated with new wording, including a third option of "spouse" in addition to "bride" and "groom." Several couples held marriage ceremonies within minutes or hours of getting their certificates. Others began making plans for more formal ceremonies with families and friends. The concrete patio outside the Maricopa County clerk of the Superior Court's office, near Fifth Avenue and Jackson Street, became the scene of a pop-up wedding chapel by midmorning Friday. Couples leaving the office with certificates in hand were greeted by ministers offering to perform the ceremony on the spot. Some held up signs that said, in red letters: "We stand ready to marry you!" Ceremonies dotted the small plaza. Photographers and TV camera crews hustled into place to get a good angle for the brief exchanges of vows. Every few minutes, clapping marked the end of one ceremony, then whooping and shouting would end another. At Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton's office,a couple who have been together for 12 years were married by an openly gay judge who said he had previously refused to officiate weddings in Arizona because same-sex unions were prohibited. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kevin Kane said he was honored to have the opportunity to perform the ceremony. "It's about time," he said. Tim Pawlak and Jason Bannecker, together for more than a decade, exchanged rings about five years ago. Exchanging vows was something neither said they needed to solidify their relationship. But they were thrilled to have the opportunity. Stanton said that their union marked a historic day in Arizona but that there are more to come. "It's a civil march moving forward. I'm glad you chose us. Today is a day about love," he said. At Coconino County Superior Court in Flagstaff, Gary Dunn, 62, and Dwayne Conn, 50, had a marriage license in hand within 10 minutes. But after being together 18 years, they didn't know when exactly they would put the piece of paper to use. "We filed a mortgage together 15 years ago," Dunn said. "How much more married can you get?" Letitia Labrecque was married to Denise Labrecque in Letitia Labrecque was married to Denise Labrecque outside the county courthouse in Phoenix.(Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic) Erika Alvarez, 31, and Abby Ortiz, 33, were among the first couples to get licenses at the Coconino County courthouse. They returned later in the day for a marriage ceremony in one of the courtrooms. Before the ceremony, Alvarez reflected on what the day meant to her. "(From now on) I'm going to be married," she said. "I'm not less than that couple or that couple or that couple. I won't have to say, 'She's my partner.' I can say, 'She's my wife.'" She held Ortiz's face in her hands during the brief ceremony, which was filled with smiles and tears. Howard Grodman, a judge in the Flagstaff Justice Court, ended with slightly new wording. "Now, by the authority that was newly vested in me today, by the state of Arizona, I pronounce you spouses." Two dozen observers hooted and hollered. In Tucson, the Rev. Delle McCormick, senior minister of Rincon Congregational Church, arrived at Pima County Superior Court at about 10 a.m. with the intention of marrying as many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples as possible. McCormick, who is a lesbian, was married in Massachusetts to her partner of nine years. Her marriage became legal Friday in Arizona. Katherine Harrison, 37, and Jennifer Shelton, 35, arrived at the same courthouse later that morning. Friday's legal decision worked out perfectly for them — they already had a (less official) wedding planned for today. "We got a cup of coffee and just raced right on over," Harrison said. "We haven't even had breakfast yet." They emerged at noon with a license, headed to their wedding-rehearsal dinner later Friday. Their ceremony was to go ahead as planned this evening. Now, they said, they are thinking about adopting a child. "Way to go, Arizona," Harrison said. At least six wedding ceremonies had taken place by midafternoon outside the Pima County courthouse. Officials at the Maricopa County Northwest Regional Court Center in Surprise began setting up clipboards for marriage licenses shortly after Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announced he would not appeal the federal ruling. The courthouse had its first marriage license by noon, with nine licenses issued and five marriage ceremonies performed near the doorstep my midafternoon. Ann Vanacore and Helen Dunlap were the first gay couple issued a marriage license in Surprise. They have been together for 41 years, most of which was lived in silence for fear of losing their jobs as elementary-school teachers in Connecticut. They only recently broke their silence, and they attribute that to a local choir group they joined and Phoenix Mercury star Brittney Griner. The Rev. Terry Sims, who married couples in front of the Surprise courthouse, said it was a bold new day for justice and civil rights in Arizona. "The trend has been in favor of gay marriage for a number of years. This doesn't mean there won't be pockets of resistance," he said. "But the tide is definitely shifting." Jimi Olmstead and Jim Harland were married in Los Angeles in 2008. But Olmstead said they wanted to be married in the state where they live, which they did in Surprise on Friday. They moved to Sun City West recently to be with Olmstead's father, who had become ill. They met 38 years ago in a gay bar in West Hollywood. The disco song "You Should Be Dancing" by the Bee Gees was playing. They danced — and they have never been apart since. Maricopa County's software system for printing licenses was up and running, allowing a third option — "spouse" — in addition to "bride" and "groom." "A couple can come in, and it can be bride-bride, groom-groom, spouse-spouse or whatever the couple chooses," said Michael Jeanes, Maricopa County clerk of Superior Court. In downtown Phoenix, a business awards luncheon turned into a celebration. Just as servers were setting out entrees in the ballroom at the Downtown Phoenix Sheraton Hotel, couples Sue Wieger and Sheila Kloefkorn and Bonnie Meyer and Katharine Halpin were married by Phoenix Municipal Judge Marianne Bayardi. The weddings were a surprise for the more than 600 guests at the One Community awards luncheon, celebrating partnerships between the gay community and Arizona businesses. Bayardi got a call at 9:30 a.m. Friday asking her to perform the wedding, an hour before Horne made his announcement. The room broke into shouts, clapping, whooping and cheers when Bayardi pronounced the legally married couples. Wieger held Kloefkorn's hand and said, "Now I can take care of her for the rest of my life," and kissed the back of her hand. As the two couples posed for photos, servers passed out plates of vanilla layer cake frosted with a single word: "Love." Republic reporters Tyler Fingert, Ryan Van Velzer, Mariana Dale, Megan Finnerty, Richard Ruelas, Jim Walsh, Sean Holstege, Philip Haldiman, Yihyun Jeong, Dianna M. Náñez, Maria Polletta, Caitlin McGlade, Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Dustin Gardiner contributed to this article. Reach the reporter at 602-444-8072 or anne.ryman@arizonarepublic.com. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/10/17/gay-marriage-institution-stronger/17436099/ Marriage, the institution, just got stronger Editorial board, The Republic | azcentral.com 12:17 p.m. MST October 17, 2014 Our View: With Attorney General Tom Horne declining to appeal, same sex couples can create lasting and legal unions. gay marriage Attorney General Tom Horne will not appeal a federal court's decision declaring Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. And so we will soon find out if the institution of marriage can withstand the flood of loving couples who wish to formalize their relationship and avail themselves of all the legal protections heterosexual couples have long taken for granted. We expect it will do just fine. It hasn't suffered in any of the 30 other states where gays and lesbians now unite in matrimony. Oh, there will be those who lash out at judges who uphold constitutional principles over popular passions. There will be those who insist that "God still ordains marriage to only be the union of one man and one woman," as Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod did this morning in an email blast that promises to "redouble our efforts to rebuild a culture of marriage." They are free to do so. Churches can continue to decide who they will marry. That is their constitutional right. But in Arizona, a large number of couples already marry outside of the church, with a nondenominational pastor or no clergy at all. Marriage is not solely a religious rite. In our secular society, it is a civil institution that bestows legal rights and responsibilities. Married couples can direct the upbringing of their children, rather than having to decide which one will be listed as the parent. They can own community property. A spouse can see the other in the hospital or have a say in medical care without being turned away as an unrelated person. At last, committed same-sex couples in Arizona will have these basic civil rights. Today's gay-marriage ruling: Vivian Mitchell, 26, left, and Rochell McCarty, 33, both Phoenix, celebrate after getting married outside the Clerk of The Superior Court office in Phoenix. Gay marriage was legalized in Arizona Friday, October 17, 2014. (Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic) Horne called this one correctly. An appeal would have no chance of success at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which already has ruled on this issue. The Supreme Court turned away appeals from other circuits. The inevitable has arrived in Arizona. It is a day to celebrate. The history of the United States is one of expanding rights, of bringing more and more people under the protection of a Constitution dedicated to securing "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Those blessings were secured today for same-sex couples in Arizona. And with a judge's decree, the institution of marriage became stronger. http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/10/17/bans-to-same-sex-marriage-in-arizona-struck-down/17434573/ Gay marriage - and equality - come to Arizona Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 1:01 p.m. MST October 17, 2014 And so it comes, not with a cataclysmic bang but with the simple stroke of a pen. Strike a blow for equality, Arizona. A federal judge this morning tossed out Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage. In a four-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick ruled that last week's 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling declaring marriage restrictions unconstitutional in Nevada and Idaho also applies to Arizona. Attorney General Tom Horne has directed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses immediately. Of course, Friday's ruling was inevitable, both because of last week's 9th Circuit ruling and because of the swift moving change in public sentiment. Maybe it's generational. Maybe it's simply an acknowledgement that consenting adults ought to be treated equally under the law. The argument that the state needs to protect traditional marriage in order to protect children has never really worked. For one thing, plenty of couples marry and have none. For another, half of all marriages fail. And thirdly, whether or not two consenting adults marry has absolutely no effect on my children. Or yours. Somebody needs to send word to the Center for Arizona's Cathi Herrod that everything's going to be OK. "Today, we grieve," she wrote, in a prepared statement. "We grieve for the children who now have no chance of growing up with a mom and a dad. We mourn the loss of a culture and its ethical foundation. We mourn a culture that continues to turn its back on timeless principles." Breathe, Cathi. It's really not the end of the world as you know it. In fact, it's the world you're living in. Actually, I'm still not quite sure why government is even in the marriage business. It seems far more logical to leave the matter of "Holy Matrimony" to a couple, their church and their God, and the issue of a civil contract outlining a living arrangement to the government. But given that government has decided that it must license marriage, there is that pesky constitutional principle which calls for treating people equally. I'm guessing most Arizonans would agree with that principle. This, after all, is the land of Senate Bill 1062. You remember SB 1062, the freedom of religion/right-to-refuse-service-in-the-name-of-God bill pushed by Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy. Most Arizonans were aghast earlier this year when the Legislature approved what amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination. Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill, saying "I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated." The same could be said for marriage. I can't think of one example of how the government approving what amounts to a contract between two consenting adults violates my rights, or endangers my marriage. Or yours. http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2014/10/17/same-sex-marriage-arizona-judge-sedwick-attorney-general-tom-horne/17433211/ Great day for equal rights in same-sex marriage ruling EJ Montini, columnist | azcentral.com 11:02 a.m. MST October 17, 2014 It's a very good day for wedding planners. And an even better day for those who believe in equal rights ... for everyone. Federal Judge John Sedwick -- as he hinted he would -- struck down Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage. Several lawsuits has been filed against the law. Shawn Aiken, a lawyer representing seven Arizona couples who were challenging the law in court, said, "These couples from across Arizona bravely stood for equality for themselves, their families, and over 21,000 other gay and lesbian couples living in Arizona today." The judge had given the state until Thursday to come up with an argument to convince him otherwise. But there is no good argument. Arizona Republic columnist Ed Montini and reporter Megan Finnerty discuss the court's ruling to legalize same-sex marriage in Arizona. There has been no good argument against same-sex marriage. Now, finally, Arizona will be forced to say "I do" to same-sex marriage. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne decided not to try to delay the inevitable. Some day we'll be asking ourselves what took us so long. Gov. Jan Brewer sounded the loudest, most sour note on the subject, issuing a statement that read in part, "In 2008, Arizona voters approved a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Now, with their rulings, the federal courts have again thwarted the will of the people and further eroded the authority of states to regulate and uphold our laws. It is not only disappointing, but also deeply troubling, that unelected federal judges can dictate the laws of individual states, create rights based on their personal policy preferences and supplant the will of the people in an area traditionally left to the states for more than two hundred years." Actually, courts have been making decisions exactly like this -- when a law is unconstitutional -- for more than 200 years. The governor can look it up. For now, however, Arizona ACLU Executive Director Alessandra Soler, said of the court's decision, "Today's ruling brings security to thousands of families in Arizona. It's a moment to be celebrated. Equal protection of the law is one of the fundamental principles that allows our country to thrive and evolve. Dismantling this discriminatory ban brings our state and nation closer to our founding ideals of fairness, justice and liberty. We will continue to fight for equality for all Arizonans and oppose any efforts to unravel today's historic victory." "Today we celebrate the court's recognition that every individual in Arizona has the freedom to marry the person they love. We hope that Attorney General Tom Horne will honor the court's ruling and allow marriage licenses to be issued immediately." And Horne agreed. It was the right thing to do. It was the only thing to do.
F.B.I. Director James B. Comey - F*ck the 4th & 5th Amendment, we have to be able to tap your phone and read your email. Well he didn't actually say that, but I am sure that is what he meant!!! Currently there are laws that require phone companies to make it a trivial task for the government to tap your phone. That law is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I suspect that F.B.I. Director James B. Comey wants a law to require any business that makes a device that the FBI might want to tap to create a back door to allow the FBI to get in. The reason the Founders created the Bill of Rights it to protect us from government tyrants like F.B.I. Director James B. Comey. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/us/politics/fbi-director-in-policy-speech-calls-dark-devices-hindrance-to-crime-solving.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 F.B.I. Director Calls ‘Dark’ Devices a Hindrance to Crime Solving By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and NICOLE PERLROTHOCT. 16, 2014 WASHINGTON — The director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, said Thursday that federal laws should be changed to require telecommunications companies to give law enforcement agencies access to the encrypted communications of individuals suspected of crimes. In a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, Mr. Comey warned that crimes could go unsolved if law enforcement officers cannot gain access to information that technology companies like Apple and Google are protecting using increasingly sophisticated encryption technology. “Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem,” he said. Mr. Comey said that he was hoping to spur Congress to update the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that requires phone companies to build into their systems an ability to immediately begin wiretapping if presented with a court order. Online services like Gmail or Facebook are not covered by that law. As people have increasingly communicated over the Internet instead of by phone, the F.B.I. has been pushing since at least 2010 to expand the law so that they would be covered by the same mandate, warning that its ability to carry out wiretap orders is “going dark.” One aspect of the F.B.I.'s concern has been start-up companies, many of which have not built intercept capabilities into their products. That can cause delays when they receive an order. For their part, the start-ups say that building in such capabilities is costly and could attract malicious hackers. A separate but related question is whether companies should be permitted to build communications systems that are encrypted end to end, so that the providers are not able to unscramble them even if presented with a lawful wiretap order. That is an increasing trend, and Mr. Comey focused on it as a danger that could facilitate lawbreaking. “Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism, even with lawful authority,” he said. “We have the legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to court order, but we often lack the technical ability to do so.” It was Mr. Comey’s first speech about law enforcement policy since he took over the F.B.I. in September 2013. In his first year, he spent a significant amount of time crisscrossing the country to visit most of the F.B.I.'s 56 field offices. The battle between Silicon Valley and the intelligence community over information gathering, which had been simmering for 20 years, escalated last month after Apple said it would roll out new encryption for the iPhone that would prevent even Apple from gaining access to customer information. Cracking the encryption in Apple’s new operating system would take more than five years of trying every possible six-figure alphanumeric passcode, according to an Apple technical guide, though that estimate has been debated among cryptographers. Similarly, Google has offered encryption for Android phones for the past three years, but it requires that users switch it on in the phone’s settings. Google has said the latest version of the Android operating system, to be released this month, will ship with encryption turned on by default. Representatives for Apple did not return requests for comment. A Google spokesman referred to the company’s previous statement on encryption. “People previously used safes and combination locks to keep their information secure — now they use encryption,” the company said in the statement. “It’s why we have worked hard to provide this added security for our users.” Mr. Comey cited the new iPhone as a sign that encryption might be getting out of hand, although he stopped short of saying that any revision of the surveillance law should require manufacturers to build back doors into the encryption technology used to protect data stored on devices. In the 1990s, the F.B.I. pushed for such back doors but lost that debate. Mr. Comey did, however, say that the law’s revision should require communications providers to be able to unscramble messages if presented with a court order. That would not require building back doors into encryption, but would require the providers to be able to unscramble the messages. Gmail, for example, encrypts emails as they flow from users’ computers to Google’s servers, stores them in plain text on its servers, and then encrypts them again as they are sent over the network to recipients. But some services encrypt the contents of messages from start to finish, so the firms pass on the messages but cannot read them or turn them over in plain-text form to law enforcement. Mr. Comey said he thought that should not be permitted, bringing him back to the position held by the F.B.I. before reports surfaced last year about extensive electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency, based on documents leaked by the former intelligence agency contractor Edward Snowden. Silicon Valley executives were enraged by revelations from Mr. Snowden’s files that the N.S.A. was not just asking companies to hand over data through secret court orders but also gathering information through the “back door” — breaking into their data centers and stealing encryption keys, or gathering data as it flowed in unencrypted form. Those revelations, along with claims by technology companies that they are losing billions of dollars a year because of canceled contracts and lost business opportunities, have put the F.B.I. on the defensive. On Thursday, Mr. Comey insisted that the F.B.I. gathered data only through legal means. “It frustrates me, because I want people to understand that law enforcement needs to be able to access communications and information to bring people to justice,” Mr. Comey said. “We do so pursuant to the rule of law, with clear guidance and strict oversight.” Countries like Brazil, India and Germany are considering so-called “data localization” laws that would force companies to move their data centers within their borders if they want to operate in these markets. The European Union and Brazil have said that they would run a new undersea fiber-optic cable between Brazil and Portugal to thwart American spying. The American Civil Liberties Union responded forcefully to Mr. Comey’s comments about encryption. “Federal law explicitly protects the right of companies to add encryption with no back doors,” Laura W. Murphy, director of the group’s Washington legislative office, said in a written statement. “Whether the F.B.I. calls it a front door or a back door, any effort by the F.B.I. to weaken encryption leaves our highly personal information and our business information vulnerable to hacking by foreign governments and criminals.” Technology companies have argued that, even with encryption, there are still ways for law enforcement to legally circumvent encryption by intercepting data in the cloud, or by forcing criminal suspects to hand over the passwords to their devices. On Thursday, Mr. Comey addressed what he called “misconceptions.” “At the outset, Apple says it’s not that big of a deal,” Mr. Comey said. “Uploading to the cloud doesn’t include all of the stored data on a bad guy’s phone.” And he said it would create a “black hole” if criminals opted not to store any data on the cloud. Mr. Comey also said that the government was limited in its ability to crack encryption, using so-called “brute force” means in which computers guess at every possible combination. “Even a supercomputer would have difficulty with today’s high-level encryption,” Mr. Comey said, adding that some devices and applications erase encryption keys if too many attempts are made to break a password. Silicon Valley executives say that complying would significantly increase their costs to build out new data centers abroad, and potentially cost American jobs. At a panel discussion in Palo Alto, Calif., last week, Colin Stretch, general counsel for Facebook, said that encryption had become a “key business objective” for technology companies. “I’d be fundamentally surprised if anybody takes the foot off the pedal of building encryption into their products,” he said. If not, said Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, the impact of the N.S.A. spy revelations on the technology industry could be “severe.” Correction: October 16, 2014 An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect name for the general counsel of Facebook. He is Colin Stretch, not Colin Smith. Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Nicole Perlroth from San Francisco. Charlie Savage contributed reporting from Washington.
More on that Buckeye cop who threatened to murder a Mexican he stopped http://www.teleguiaenespanol.com/Edicion/index.htm Amenaza de muerte supuesto oficial a inmigrante Según la parada de tráfico ocurrió en el área de Buckeye, Arizona. Un inmigrante fue amenazado por un supuesto agente de policía en Buckeye, Arizona, durante una parada de tráfico de rutina. Erika Andiola, activista por los derechos de inmigrantes en Arizona publicó en su Facebook un enlace a un video de YouTube que muestra lo que parece ser un oficial de policía de habla hispana amenazando de muerte a un conductor latino cuando lo detuvo. De acuerdo a lo manejado por las redes sociales, los hechos ocurrieron el viernes y sábado. La líder de Dream Action Coalition publicó en su cuenta de Facebook lo siguiente: "No puedo creer esto, el esposo de mi amiga, que por cierto está en proceso de deportación, fue amenazado por un policía de Buckeye, Arizona, quien le dijo que lo iba a ‘matar’ a él en una parada de tráfico, sin razón". En su cuenta de facebook se encuentra el enlace del video de YouTube, donde decenas de personas han manifestado su repudio ante las supuestas agresiones del agente de policía de Arizona aún no identificado. En el video se puede apreciar que el conductor nunca agredió al oficial y en todo el proceso de cuestionamiento colaboró con sus requerimientos, aun así, fue amenazado de muerte. El conductor se encuentra en proceso de deportación, según Andiola. Hasta el momento, el Departamento de Policía de Buckeye no ha publicado una declaración referente a las amenazas del oficial durante la parada de tráfico de rutina. A continuación una reproducción de la grabación con el inmigrante y el supuesto oficial: OFICIAL: Ponga las manos donde pueda verlas. Manos arriba, aquí. Gire el coche fuera. Cuál es tu nombre? HOMBRE: [Inaudible]... Sánchez. OFICIAL: No? HOMBRE: [Inaudible] ... Sánchez. OFICIAL: Déjame ver las llaves. ¿Armas? ¿Usted tiene las armas? MAN: No. OFICIAL: ¿No hay armas en el coche? Mantenga las manos donde pueda verlas. No se mueva. HOMBRE: ¿Qué pasó? OFICIAL: ¿Tiene usted una licencia? HOMBRE: Sí, señor. OFICIAL: Muéstrame la licencia en este momento. Si haces algo, te mato aquí mismo. ¿Me entiendes? HOMBRE: [español aquí es un poco inaudible] Sí, te estoy grabando también. OFICIAL: Ponga sus manos en alto aquí. ¿Usted no tiene armas en el coche? ¿Estás seguro? ¿Qué hay en el coche? HOMBRE: No, si quieres, puedo salir del coche. OFICIAL: ¿Qué hace aquí, entonces? HOMBRE: Yo vengo a trabajar. Estas son mis herramientas. OFICIAL: ¿Sus herramientas? ¿Estás seguro? HOMBRE: Estoy seguro. OFICIAL: Ok. No salgas del coche. Quédate ahí. Si te mueves, te pego un tiro aquí mismo. ¿Me entiendes? HOMBRE: Sí. ¿Quieres comprobar mi ID (inaudible)? OFICIAL: ¿De dónde vienes?
I am a royal government rulers, I am above the law??? I can use your tax dollars to get my self re-elected. If you don't like it f*ck yourself!!! Sadly it seems like most of our government rulers feel this way!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/15/huppenthal-video-may-violated-campaign-rule/17326455/ Huppenthal video may have violated campaign rule Mary Beth Faller, The Republic | azcentral.com 3:53 p.m. MST October 15, 2014 John Huppenthal, Arizona's superintendent of public instruction, is could be fined for sending a video to teachers across the state two weeks before the primary election, which he lost. The video, which focused on the hot topic of Common Core, may have violated campaign finance laws, according to Tom Collins, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. On Wednesday, Collins released a memo that said Huppenthal's video "was indistinguishable from his campaign message" and "was presented to a key constituency two weeks prior to the election." Huppenthal used $97,000 in public financing for his campaign and in doing so, agreed to limits on spending and contributions. The video, produced using Department of Education resources, was a "contribution," violating the rules, Collins found. The full commission will meet on Thursday and could decide to pursue further investigation. If the commission concludes there was a violation, Huppenthal could face a fine. The amount was not specified. In a statement released to the Arizona Republic Wednesday, Huppenthal defended the video: "Over the last three years, I have communicated daily with educators about the Math and English Language Arts standards. This communication is a huge part of my job. As the standards became more controversial, I acted to protect the education system by communicating more, not less. I believe it would have been a dereliction of duty to have done less." The 90-second video was posted to YouTube and e-mailed to the state's teachers on Arizona Department of Education letterhead on Aug. 12, two weeks before the Aug. 26 election. In the video, Huppenthal discusses Common Core — the set of nationwide academic standards that Arizona adopted in 2010. The guidelines have become politicized, with conservatives saying they are federal overreach. Huppenthal lost the primary to Diane Douglas, who has made a promise to repeal the standards the centerpiece of her campaign. Huppenthal had been a champion of Common Core after his election in 2010, but walked a tightrope on the issue as he tried to garner support from conservatives before the primary. When the video was released, Huppenthal told the Republic he thought it was appropriate to come from his office because it clarified which parts of the standards he supported and reiterated his plan to review them. In the video, he says he supports "standards that prepare our students for success in college and career and life."
Doug Ducey as a mobster? Oh, come on Personally I don't like the Democrat or the Republican running for governor of Arizona. But just because I think they are jerks isn't a good enough reason to slander then and make up questionable attacks which kinda, sorta, maybe might be true. The Phoenix New Times seems to have a history of twisting the facts around to meet whatever agenda they have. I have had letters to the editor published in all of the major newspapers in the Valley many times, and the only newspaper that edited my letters to make them say something I didn't mean was the Phoenix New Times. I have had 3 letters to the editor published in the New Times and they edited them ALL to mean something I didn't say. http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/10/15/doug-ducey-family-organized-crime-october-surprise/17309157/ Doug Ducey as a mobster? Oh, come on Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 5:40 p.m. MST October 15, 2014 Today comes a "shocking" story from the Arizona campaign trail – one that dwarfs all those supposedly shocking questions about Fred DuVal's driving record, shocking questions about DuVal's supposedly "shady" dealings as a lobbyist and his attendance at a party thrown by a now-dead Washington lobbyist who once represented Saddam Hussein, which I'm told is supposed to be shocking. Today's shocker: Doug Ducey has ties to the mob. It makes for a great headline: "Special Report: Arizona Gubernatorial Candidate Doug Ducey Hails from an Infamous Ohio Organized-Crime Family". But 21 paragraphs into the story, by the New Times Stephen Lemons and The Center for Investigative Reporting's Lance Williams, we learn this: "New Times and The Center for Investigative Reporting discovered no evidence that Ducey ever profited from the activities of his involved maternal relatives – or that the GOP candidate engaged in any criminal activity." As October surprises go, it's a bit of a yawner. OK, so Ducey's from an Italian-American family in Ohio and four of his relatives ran after-hours gambling clubs and were into bookmaking, numbers running, loan sharking and "other lucrative illicit activities" from the 1920s through the 1980s. "Could Ducey be ignorant of the exploits of his relatives on his mother's side?" Lemons asks. Probably not. And this makes Ducey guilty of … what, exactly? Just as I can't get too excited about the Republicans' efforts to make Fred DuVal out to be some sketchy character who careens around the streets on his suspended driver's license with an 'I love Saddam Hussein" bumper sticker on his car, I'm not going to get overly exercised over Doug Ducey's nefarious relatives. Do the sins of the (god)fathers now apply to the sons? Me? I'm far more interested in the dark money that's pouring in to get Ducey elected and to who -- or for what -- he might be beholden when the election's over. - UPDATE: Ducey's campaign forwarded this statement, from his spokeswoman who asked that I use her full Italian-American name, Melissa Mazzella DeLaney: "In the United States of America and in the State of Arizona, people know you and judge you based on your life, the way you have lived it and your accomplishments, not on the actions of relatives from previous generations. The New Times correctly reported that the information about past family members does not touch Doug Ducey's life or career. This has been a tough campaign where both candidates have had their careers vetted, which is entirely appropriate when seeking a very high office. Doug trusts the voters of Arizona to make decisions based on the life he has led and his vision to create greater opportunities as the next governor." I asked DeLaney whether Ducey got any of his start-up funds from any of the four relatives mentioned in the article or as a result of criminal activity. Her answer: "No, absolutely not." ---- Here is a link to the Phoenix New Times article on this: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2014/10/special_report_doug_ducey_hails_from_an_infamous_ohio_organized-crime_famil.php Special Report: Arizona Gubernatorial Candidate Doug Ducey Hails From an Infamous Ohio Organized-Crime Family By Stephen Lemons and Lance Williams Tue., Oct. 14 2014 at 4:58 PM Most of Doug Ducey's professional life has been spent in sales of one kind or another. So when the 50-year-old entrepreneur turned politician was given a chance to sell himself at an exclusive June retreat sponsored by billionaire siblings Charles and David Koch, naturally he emphasized the positive. According to secret recordings of the event recently made public as part of a special report by The Nation magazine and the YouTube channel The Undercurrent, Arizona's state treasurer had attended these Koch brothers summits before and knew the audience consisted of potential big-money contributors. Ducey spoke their language. He talked up the success of Cold Stone Creamery, which he and his partner sold in 2007, boasting that the company grew from a few stores to "1,440 in all 50 states" without any assistance from the public sector. "We did it without government," he told the summit's attendees. "We did it without subsidies. We did it without tax incentives for chocolate-dipped waffle cones." Ducey's audience chortled. Delivered with a touch of humor, this evocation of independent, can-do capitalism was the perfect pitch to the crowd of plutocrats, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. See, franchisees for Cold Stone Creamery, like franchisees of other fast-food chains, benefit from loans backed by the U.S. Small Business Administration. In a recent analysis, the Wall Street Journal reported that Cold Stone Creamery was one of "the 10 worst franchise brands in terms of [SBA] loan defaults," coming in at number four, with a nearly 30 percent failure rate. But sharing such negatives does not help close a deal. As they say in sales, "Never answer an unasked question." So Ducey didn't delve into the downside of Cold Stone's rapid growth. Similarly, when he discussed how, as state treasurer, he successfully campaigned against a proposition that would have made permanent a temporary one-cent state sales tax, Ducey didn't mention the mess the state's budget currently is in or how Arizona faces a massive $1.5 billion deficit over the next two years, which the sales tax would have helped ameliorate. Ducey normally does not offer up adverse information about his state, his accomplishments, or his personal history. What politician does? "I don't come from any political background," Ducey told attendees. "I grew up in Toledo, Ohio. My dad was a cop. I'm very much a product of the Midwest and the working class." He also related how, during his junior year at Toledo's St. John's Jesuit High School, his school counselor pulled a Horace Greeley and pointed toward Arizona on a map, suggesting to Ducey that there was opportunity aplenty out West. "So I got in my Datsun B210 and drove from Toledo to Tempe," he said. "I didn't know one person. I had never been in Arizona." Ducey studied finance at Arizona State University and married his college sweetheart, Angela, a beauty queen with whom he's had three clean-cut Catholic boys. After working for Procter & Gamble in Los Angeles and Chicago, he returned to Arizona and got involved with a local ice cream retailer, which he helped turn into a vast chain before selling it for millions of dollars to Scottsdale's Kahala Corporation. Turning his eye to politics, he ran for treasurer in 2010 and won, deftly using the low-profile office as a stepping stone to greater things. This year, in a campaign he helped bankroll with $3 million of his own fortune, he emerged victorious from a six-way Republican primary for governor, with a 37 percent plurality. But the all-American image Ducey projects, one which helped him win the primary and may help him win the general election, belies a family tree that includes two generations of his mother's family's involvement in organized crime. That said, New Times and The Center for Investigative Reporting discovered no evidence that Ducey ever profited from the activities of his involved maternal relatives -- or that the GOP candidate engaged in any criminal activity. According to newspaper accounts and public records from various court and congressional hearings, four of Ducey's relatives in an Italian-American family called Scott (anglicized from Scotti) were involved in illegal gambling in Ohio. Family members ran after-hours gambling clubs and participated in bookmaking, numbers-running, extortion, loan-sharking, and other lucrative illicit activities from the 1920s through the 1980s. The candidate's maternal grandfather, William Scott (a.k.a. Bill Scotti), was a convicted bookmaker who partnered with members of the Detroit mob. His son Billy Scott, Ducey's uncle, was a high-profile sports bookmaker in Toledo who did time in federal prison in Arizona before fleeing to the Caribbean island of Antigua, where he became an online gambling kingpin. Uncle Billy returned to the United States in 2012 to plead guilty in federal court to international money laundering and illegal Internet wagering. Ducey's great uncle Tony Paul Scott (a.k.a. Neufio Scott), his grandfather's brother, was among Toledo's "most legendary racketeers" and one of the "elders of the loosely knit Toledo crime family," according to the Toledo Blade, the city's daily newspaper. During his long life, Tony Paul was arrested numerous times, incarcerated for illegal gambling and highway robbery, and eventually stripped of his U.S. citizenship, though he was allowed to remain in this country until his death in 1993. These sins of the state treasurer's fascinating bloodline have remained unknown to the general public. Until now. SNIP Go to the Phoenix New Times to see the rest of the article
I always thought the purpose of government was to do the things it is impossible for the public to do on their own. If that is the case why the f*ck are the Buckeye elected rulers giving OUR money to THEIR favorite charities??? Us serfs are perfectly capable of giving OUR money to OUR favorite charities and we don't need any government nannies to take our money at gun point and donate OUR money to THEIR favorite charities. Also that donation of $12,000 to All Faith Community Services sure sounds like it's a violation of both the US Constitution and Arizona Constitution which both forbid mixing government and religion. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley/2014/07/14/buckeye-budget-expenditures-2014/12647183/ Buckeye gives $42K to 7 non-profits David Madrid , The Republic | azcentral.com 7:19 a.m. MST October 16, 2014 What the city did: The Buckeye City Council approved donations to seven non-profit organizations. What it cost: $42,000. Why the city did it: Once a year, the city donates money to non-profits that help residents. The organizations and their awards are: All Faith Community Services, $12,000; Buckeye Lions Foundation Inc., $2,500; Buckeye Valley Historical Society, $3,000; Daughters of the American Revolution, $7,000; Homeless Youth Connection, $5,000; Southwest Lending Closet, $5,000; and Youth4Youth, $7,500.
Don't worry, the Phoenix Police will investigate themselves and find they did nothing wrong. As they always do. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/10/15/phoenix-police-taser-death-abrk/17321969/ Phoenix police launch inquiry after man, 65, dies in custody D.S. Woodfill, The Republic | azcentral.com 8:35 p.m. MST October 15, 2014 A 65-year-old man who died Oct. 6 while in Phoenix police custody had kicked and spilled hot water on officers before they ended the confrontation by shooting him with a Taser, according to the department. Phoenix police said Wednesday they were conducting an internal investigation following the death of Balantine Mbegbu. Police responded to a 911 call at 9 p.m. about a fight in a home in the area of Glendale and 27th avenues. \When police arrived, things quickly escalated, and by the end of the night, Mbegbu was in a hospital morgue. Police said Mbegbu became physical with responding officers and forced them to react. Mbegbu fought with officers, spilled hot liquid on them and kicked an officer in the groin, according to investigators. "Mbegbu backed the officer across the room and assaulted him," a police statement said. Sgt. Jonathan Howard declined to be interviewed about the incident. "Shortly after being detained, Mr. Mbegbu showed signs of medical distress," according to a Phoenix police statement. "Officers immediately recognized this, removed the handcuffs, began first aid, and called for Phoenix Fire to assist." Paramedics took Mbegbu to a hospital, where he died. Police said they were "committed to ensuring a complete and thorough investigation into this incident to determine the circumstances of Mr. Mbegbu's death." The Rev. Oscar Tillman, president of the Phoenix NAACAP, said he's not suspicious that the officers did anything wrong. "The reason I don't think it's suspicious ... is that the wife is the one who opened the door and let them (the officers) in," he said. But critics of the department, including the Rev. Jarrett Maupin, a Phoenix activist and unsuccessful candidate for Congress, were planning a protest at 2 p.m. today at City Hall. Maupin said Mbegbu's wife simply answered the door when they knocked, and then the police barged in. "He became both angry and inquisitive about why the police were there, as any normal person would," he said. Maupin said that according to the family, the officers were the first to get physical. "They handcuffed him face-down, and he begins to foam at the mouth," he said. "At this point, 911 hasn't been called yet. They roll him over and attempt several times to sit him up." Maupin said the police had not been forthcoming with details since the incident.
Another Ariz. immigration law shot down by 9th Circuit Sadly when our royal rulers pass unconstitutional laws like these they don't even get a slap on the wrist for punishment. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/10/15/immigration-prop100-aclu-arizona-unconstitutional/17310919/ Another Ariz. immigration law shot down by 9th Circuit Michael Kiefer, The Republic | azcentral.com 5:59 p.m. MST October 15, 2014 The law deemed class 4 felonies as serious crimes. Another of Arizona's immigration laws was struck down Wednesday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional a law denying bond to undocumented immigrants charged with "serious" crimes. The law, known as Proposition 100, was passed by voters in November 2006, during the height of anti-immigrant sentiment in the state. After the vote, the Legislature defined "serious" crimes as Class 4 felonies or worse -- the most serious felonies are Class 1, the least serious Class 6. Subsequent immigration laws tended to be classified as Class 4. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law in federal court, but it was upheld by a U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix, and the first appeal in the 9th Circuit failed last June. The ACLU then asked to have the case reheard "en banc," meaning, by a larger panel of judges. "Today's ruling vindicates one of our basic American freedoms—the U.S. Constitution's guarantee that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty," said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued the case before the 9th Circuit. "The court has restored to Arizona the fundamental constitutional principle that each person is entitled to an individual hearing in court before they are locked up while awaiting trial." Dan Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona added, "You're not allowed to punish before trial; this was clearly punishment." A spokesman for the Sheriff's Office said it would appeal the ruling. "This is the 9th Circuit substituting itself for the District Court, for the Arizona state legislature, for the Arizona Court of Appeals and four out of five voters who voted for Prop 100," said Deputy Chief Sheriff Jack MacIntyre. In a prepared statement, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery noted "an obvious disconnect between the Court's focus on a policy disagreement and the rhetoric of eight years ago with what is actually going on today." He also said that that undocumented immigrants are often flight risks and do not always show up for court. "In these circumstances, since conditions of release include the admonition to be law abiding, we have the immediate reality of matters where a person accused of a crime is simultaneously in violation of federal law due to federal inaction, incompetence, and indifference. Rather than protect public safety and victims of crime, the 9th Circuit has chosen to create a victim class of criminals," he said in the statement. But Montgomery did not say for certain whether he will appeal the ruling; instead, he said, his office will review the matter before taking further steps. However, many of the state immigration laws passed between 2005 and 2010 already have fallen in the federal courts. Among them: -- In September 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld injunctions against three parts of the 2010 omnibus Arizona immigration law Senate Bill 1070, specifically provisions that required immigrants to carry "alien-registration papers"; to allow for warrantless arrest if an officer thinks there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S; and to make it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. The Supreme Court lifted the injunction on a statute that requires law-enforcement officers to check the legal status of people stopped during the investigation of possible crimes, but it is still being litigated -- In March 2013, the 9th Circuit ruled against another part of SB 1070, a law against impeding traffic while seeking day labor work. -- In September 2013, a U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix stopped the practice of charging undocumented immigrants as conspirators under a 2005 human smuggling law. Maricopa County settled the case out of court in July 2014. -- In October 2013, the 9th Circuit upheld an injunction on another SB 1070 statute making it illegal to harbor or transport undocumented immigrants. In April 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case. http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/10/15/prop-100-tossed-out-by-9th-circuit-appeals-court/17327045/ No-bail law for migrants is no fair, court rules Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 4:19 p.m. MST October 15, 2014 The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has tossed out another of Arizona's laws targeting immigrants who are here illegally. This time, it's the voter-imposed law denying bail to undocumented immigrants accused of certain felony crimes. The law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2006, one of several initiatives approved at the peak of the furor over illegal immigration. It then came under fire from critics who say it unfairly singles out Latino immigrants as flight risks while allowing others to await trial while free. Both U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton and a three-member panel rejected the American Civil Liberties Union's arguments. The ACLU then appealed to a larger panel of the appeals court and this morning that 11-member panel voted 9-2, ruling that the law violates the due-process rights of the immigrants by imposing punishment before trial. As approved by 78 percent of Arizona voters, Prop. 100 said that anyone in the country illegally who is accused of a serious crime should be denied bail. At the time, that made sense to me. A person who commits murder, mayhem or some other serious crime is naturally going to head for the hills (or in this case, the border) if he or she is looking at serious prison time. Then the Legislature then defined "serious" as any class four felony or above. Then, prosecutors started using the no-bail law as leverage to win low-level felony guilty pleas from those who don't want to spend endless months in jail awaiting trial on offenses that are punishable by probation. Those convictions then lead to deportation and a likely bar to any chance to return the legal way. The purpose of the no-bail law wasn't to make prosecutors' lives easier. It was to protect the public and ensure that people charged with serious crimes showed up for their day in court. Given the no-bail law, people are forgoing their day in court. No doubt, the 9th Circuit ruling will be appealed. Even if Prop. 100 ultimately disappears, a person who is accused of a truly serious crime won't be released. Offenses such as first-degree murder and rape are already non-bondable. Bond is also not allowed if you're already charged with another felony or when public safety is at risk. be appealed. If you're charged with other crimes, a judge can already set a high bond should he or she determine that you're a flight risk. The question at hand: shou ld a person accused of shoplifting automatically be treated the same as a person accused of murder?
Woman arrested for firing at snake at school Don't these pigs have any REAL criminals to hunt down??? I think water moccasins are deadly snakes. And I wonder if the woman killed the snake will she face 50 years in prison for killing an endangered species??? http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/weird/2014/10/16/woman-shoots-snake-school/17355451/ Woman arrested for firing at snake at school Associated Press 9:27 a.m. MST October 16, 2014 PANAMA CITY, Fla. — A Panama City woman who tried to shoot a water moccasin during practice for a youth football team was arrested for discharging the gun on school property. Police say 30-year-old April Dawn DeMarco borrowed a gun from Miren Gregory after the snake was spotted last week on a Bay High School field. As coaches tried to kill the snake with a stick, Gregory told DeMarco she had a concealed permit and a .380-caliber handgun. The News Herald of Panama City (http://bit.ly/1F2mxRh ) reports children were about 20 to 50 yards away when Demarco fired the gun. She was arrested Monday. Gregory was arrested Tuesday for carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a firearm on school property. It's not clear whether they've hired lawyers. Police didn't know the fate of the snake.
Screw that thing about an open accountable government!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/10/15/us-official-tied-jaguar-death-remain-hidden/17339983/ U.S. official tied to jaguar death to remain hidden Dennis Wagner, The Republic | azcentral.com 8:29 p.m. MST October 15, 2014 Six years after Arizona's only wild jaguar was unlawfully trapped and killed, a judge has ruled that the public does not have a right to know the identity of a federal wildlife official who allegedly covered up evidence during the criminal probe. That legal decision emerged last month in U.S. District Court just before settlement of a public-records lawsuit filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Arizona Daily Star. The litigation stems from the 2009 death of a jaguar known as Macho B, which was captured near the Mexican border by a trapper hired by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to conduct research on bears and mountain lions. State and federal wildlife officials initially asserted the snaring was accidental. However, after Macho B was collared, released, became ill and had to be euthanized, a whistle-blower disclosed that female jaguar feces was used to lure the male cat. The trapper, Emil McCain, was convicted of illegally taking an endangered species and sentenced to five years of probation. The Arizona Republic revealed in a 2012 special report that criminal investigators referred other suspects for prosecution, including Erin Fernandez, the federal Fish and Wildlife employee responsible for jaguar conservation. McCain alleged that state and federal jaguar overseers were complicit in Macho B's capture and in an attempted coverup. According to heavily redacted investigative records obtained by The Republic at the time via a request under the Freedom of Information Act, Fernandez had been advised by McCain and state wildlife officials that he was attempting to catch a jaguar, and she sent a congratulatory e-mail after Macho B was snared. Although Fernandez's identity was blacked out almost entirely in the 3,441-page investigation, federal authorities neglected to redact her name and position in key locations, and state officials confirmed she was a subject of the criminal investigation. Fish and Wildlife agents alleged in their report that Fernandez had obstructed justice by concealing or destroying records and that her conduct constituted fraud and false statements. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to prosecute, and she remained on her job. After The Republic story appeared, Star Publishing Co. and reporter Tony Davis sued the government to obtain about 230 pages of the investigative report that had been withheld, as well as names of Fish and Wildlife officials. The newspaper argued that the public has an overriding interest in government accountability and transparency. In an order just prior to settlement, U.S. District Judge Cindy Jorgenson said officially disclosing the names of Fernandez and other Fish and Wildlife employees "does not greatly advance the public interest" and "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion" of their privacy. The settlement papers indicate that Fish and Wildlife released some materials sought by the Daily Star and agreed to pay $50,000 in legal fees, without admitting any fault. None of the litigants could be reached for comment.
Trust the government, Uncle Sam never lies - Yea, sure!!! This is a pretty good article, but it's very long. And it has lots of pictures and charge. It's probably easier to read it on the New York Times web page. The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons By C. J. CHIVERS http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LargeMediaHeadlineSumCentered&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Journalists bypass White House Soviet style censorship??? http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/white-house-pool-reporters-test-own-news-distribution-system/2014/10/14/e005686a-53cc-11e4-809b-8cc0a295c773_story.html?hpid=z4 White House pool reporters test own news distribution system By Paul Farhi October 14 at 7:11 PM White House journalists are creating an alternative system for distributing their media “pool” reports in response to the Obama administration’s involvement in approving and disapproving certain content in official reports. A small group of reporters initiated an online forum this month in which they shared “pool” information among themselves, without White House involvement. The forum was set up by the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), which negotiates with the White House’s press staff over access for journalists. Pool reports — those summaries of the president’s public appearances that go to the news media at large and are used in countless news stories — are filed by a rotating group of journalists whose work is intended to be free of content changes by the White House. The pool journalists, however, must submit their reports to the White House press office, which distributes them via e-mail to hundreds of news organizations and others. The White House maintains the list of recipients. Reporters have complained that the Obama White House exploits its role as distributor to demand changes in pool reports and that the press office has delayed or refused to distribute some reports until they are amended to officials’ satisfaction. But now, some journalists are sharing their White House reporting using Google Groups — the digital service that allows registered users to receive and send information within a closed circle. In an early test of the supplemental system, journalists shared pool information about President Obama’s trip to Chicago this month. The system has been used for “advisories,” such as where the pool is assembling, when another pool report will be issued or whether a correction is in the works. Nearly 90 journalists, all working for print media, are part of the Google Groups distribution — a small fraction of the estimated 8,000 people, agencies and organizations that receive the “official” pool reports sent out by the White House. The goal is to create an independent pool-reporting system for print and online recipients, the WHCA members say. TV and radio reporters already have such a system, but print and online reporters — a far larger group than broadcasters — are dependent on the White House to manage and maintain the distribution system. “Our goal here is to build a supplementary system for the print poolers so they can send out information directly to other reporters whenever they feel they need to, much as the TV and radio poolers do now,” said WHCA President Christi Parsons, who is the White House correspondent for Tribune newspapers. Parsons said that an alternative system would serve as a backup to the main system in case of breakdowns, such as one that occurred on Inauguration Day in 2009. Such a system also would be faster than going through the White House, she said, given occasional delays in getting reports issued. But for various reasons, the backup means of distribution is unlikely to supplant the White House system anytime soon. The key obstacles appear to be not technological but administrative and financial. The WHCA is wary of the cost of taking over all the managerial tasks of the pool system from the White House, which does the job with its own staff at taxpayer expense. In addition to distributing the pool reports and maintaining an ever-changing list of recipients, the White House press office has several staffers who schedule reporters for pool duty, coordinate security clearances so that they can be in proximity to the president and find substitutes when there are no-shows. The correspondents’ association would have to hire its own employees to do those jobs if it wanted to take on the assignment itself. The organization is considering increasing its membership fees to hire staffers for such jobs. The White House declined requests for comment. Pool reporters rarely break news themselves, but they do provide color and detail about what the president is doing or saying, or with whom he is meeting. Journalists rely on such reports to describe scenes they cannot witness for themselves. The WHCA said that the White House has more recently been abiding by the organization’s request that press officers send out pool reports without questioning them, even when the reports contain spelling or factual errors. The group made the request in June, when Josh Earnest took over as White House press secretary. “It’s our responsibility as reporters to make sure the reports are accurate and thorough, and no one should ever assume that the White House is approving or disapproving of the content in any pool report,” Parsons said. She said that more people would be added to the Google list after an evaluation period. The intent, she said, is that “every journalist who wants information from the print pooler should be able to get it — the same information as everyone else gets, delivered at the same time.” Paul Farhi is The Washington Post's media reporter.
Were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg executed for crimes they didn't commit??? This article seems to say the might have been. "Greenglass — who admitted decades after the trial that he lied on the stand about his own sister" "The Rosenbergs ... were executed at New York’s Sing Sing prison, insisting to the very end that they were innocent" Sadly the government routinely pays people to help the government send other people to prison, or in this case execute the people. And I suspect many times these people make up lies to save their butts. Lies which send other people to prison or lies that cause other people to be executed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/david-greenglass-of-rosenberg-spying-case-dies/2014/10/14/f2446a0e-53e4-11e4-b86d-184ac281388d_story.html David Greenglass of Rosenberg spying case dies By Associated Press October 14 at 7:11 PM NEW YORK — David Greenglass, who served 10 years in prison for his role in the most explosive atomic spying case of the Cold War and gave testimony that sent his brother-in-law and sister, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to the electric chair in 1953, has died at 92. Greenglass — who admitted decades after the trial that he lied on the stand about his own sister — died in New York City on July 1, according to the Rosenbergs’ sons, Michael and Robert Meeropol. After his release from prison in 1960, Greenglass lived under an assumed name in Queens, hoping to be forgotten for his part in a McCarthy-era cause celebre that is still furiously debated to this day. A spokeswoman for the Meeropols, Amber Black, said Tuesday that the brothers were aware of their uncle’s death last summer but did not seek media attention and received no inquiries at the time. The Rosenbergs were convicted in 1951 of conspiring to steal secrets about the atomic bomb for the Soviet Union and were executed at New York’s Sing Sing prison, insisting to the very end that they were innocent. Greenglass, indicted as a co-conspirator, testified for the government that he had given the Rosenbergs research data obtained through his wartime job as an Army machinist at Los Alamos, New Mexico, the headquarters of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. He told of seeing his older sister transcribing the information on a portable typewriter at the Rosenbergs’ New York apartment in 1945. That testimony proved crucial in convicting Ethel along with her husband. In 2001, in revelations more boastful than contrite, Greenglass was quoted in the book “The Brother” by New York Times reporter Sam Roberts as saying he had not actually seen Ethel typing and knew of it only from his wife, Ruth. For the prosecution, however, the typewriter “was as good as a smoking gun in Ethel Rosenberg’s hands,” Roberts wrote. “Without that testimony, I believe she would not have been convicted, let alone executed,” Roberts said in an interview Tuesday. In the book and a CBS interview, Greenglass shrugged off any notion of a betrayal. He said he lied to assure leniency for himself and keep his wife out of prison so she could care for their two children. “As a spy who turned his family in ... I don’t care. I sleep well,” Greenglass said in the interview, adding that “stupidity” had kept the Rosenbergs from possibly saving themselves by admitting guilt. Greenglass said that while history might blame him for the Rosenbergs’ deaths, he hadn’t known that would be their fate — and that in any case, his own family came first. He also said he had been urged to lie by prosecutors, among them Roy Cohn, later a key aide to anti-communism crusader Sen. Joseph McCarthy. To some, he came to be seen as a symbol of betrayal. In the 1989 Woody Allen movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Allen’s character says of his smug and annoying brother-in-law: “I love him like a brother — David Greenglass.” In a statement Tuesday, the Rosenbergs’ sons said that David and Ruth Greenglass were the ones who passed atomic secrets on to the Soviets, then “pinned what they did on our parents — a calculated ploy to save themselves by fingering our parents as the scapegoats the government demanded.” The Rosenberg sons cited a 2001 interview in which Greenglass said he expected to be remembered “as a spy who turned his family in.” “He was right,” the sons said. Greenglass was born in New York in 1922. After Army service in World War II, including the Los Alamos assignment, he and Julius Rosenberg became partners in a machine shop. The business failed; a Rosenberg attorney later claimed that led Greenglass to seek revenge on his brother-in-law. In fact, David and Ruth Greenglass, like the Rosenbergs, were active communist sympathizers, having joined the Young Communist League in 1943. Both couples believed that the Soviet Union should have the bomb if the United States did. At trial, the Greenglasses said Julius Rosenberg had recruited David Greenglass as a spy and arranged for him to feed stolen atomic research and a detonator to a go-between, Harry Gold. Gold also was later convicted. Greenglass served 10 years of a 15-year sentence for espionage. After his release, he lived with his family in anonymity as controversy over the Rosenberg case rose and ebbed over the decades. Greenglass remained estranged for the rest of his life from the Rosenbergs’ sons, who were 6 and 10 when their parents were executed. The brother later took their adoptive parents’ surname, Meeropol. According to Roberts, Greenglass said of his nephews: “Their whole life has been involved with this kind of stupidity, to actually think they (the Rosenbergs) were innocent.” Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I don't know if Lenin actually said this quote: "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." But at the Federal level they love creating inflation, because people don't feel the indirect tax of inflation as quickly as they feel income tax increases. Currently the Federal government uses taxes to pay about 60% of it's bills. The other 40% of the money Uncle Sam spends come from running the printing presses and printing boatloads of money. Uncle Sam pretends they are "borrowing the money", not printing it. But you will have to read the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" to get more on that. The bottom line is if Uncle Sam increased your income taxes to pay for 100% of what Congress spends your income taxes would and go up by 66 percent. So for every $1,000 in taxes you currently pay, you would have to pay $1,666. http://www.azcentral.com/story/claythompson/2014/10/13/lenin-ronald-reagan-quotes/17226727/ Lenin said a lot of stuff but not all the stuff folks say he said Clay Thompson, The Republic | azcentral.com 5:22 p.m. MST October 13, 2014 Today's question: An economics professor once told our class that Lenin, the leader of the Communist revolution of 1917, stated words to the effect that the best way to defeat the United States was to make it spend itself to death. Would you please find an official source for and the correct wording of this? Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, no matter what else you might think of him or about how he did it, changed the course of world history. In the course of doing so, he said lots of stuff, which is something people who change the course of world history tend to do. The quote you are thinking of is: "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." This is widely quoted in histories and editorials. In 1974, in a speech while he was governor of California, Ronald Reagan said "Make no mistake about it: inflation is a tax and not by accident. Lenin once said, 'Through inflation government can quietly and unobservedly confiscate the prosperity of its citizens.'" The problem is that it seems that old V.I. never said it. The "grind between millstones" phrase seemed to have come from economist John Maynard Keynes after an interview with Lenin. Keynes may well have been paraphrasing Lenin, but there is no evidence he ever actually said it. Lenin also supposedly said, "We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us," but, again, there is no evidence that he ever really did. Besides, it would hardly do to go around touting the merits of an economic system that couldn't make its own rope.
Are Arizona candidates as awful as advertised? From this editorial it sounds like for most of the elections we have a choice of voting for Hitler who is running as a Democrat or voting for Stalin who is running as a Republican. Or did I mix that us is Hitler the Republican guy and Stalin the Democratic guy? Hell, I don't know those Democrats and Republicans all sound alike to me. And sadly the Arizona Republic has decided to stop covering the third party candidates. I guess this is where I plug my line that in every election we need to have a "none of the above" on the ballot, and if "none of the above" wins the office should go unfilled for the term. http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/10/14/drive-by-campaign-ads-proliferating-in-arizona/17251269/ Are Arizona candidates as awful as advertised? Really? Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 10:18 a.m. MST October 14, 2014 Early voting has begun and never have we seen such an assortment of scoundrels and scalawags as the crew gracing the Arizona ballot. Or so we are told. For governor, we have a "dishonest" ice cream mogul who delights in laying off workers right before Christmas pitted against a "career lobbyist" who engaged in "shady" dealings and once partied with Saddam Hussein's lobbyist. For attorney general, we have a "failed" regulator who cozied up to banks as Arizonans were losing their houses vs. a "liar" who welcomed murderers and sex offenders to Arizona in order to benefit his pals in the private prison industry. One congressional candidate, we are told, believes that stalkers should have access to guns while another is doing whatever she can to chase jobs out of Arizona. Really it's a wonder that these characters haven't been chased out of Arizona. It's also a wonder that anybody can muster up the effort to vote if this is truly as good as it gets. We face serious problems. In Washington, we have a Congress and president in perpetual gridlock. Our border remains a sieve and our security remains at risk, both at home and abroad. In Arizona, we have a black hole where our state budget ought to be and a pedal car that serves as our economic engine. Our public education system is struggling and our Legislature seems more interested in finding new and inventive ways to restrict abortion than in fixing what ails this place. Yet the biggest issue this week in the governor's race is the revelation that Fred DuVal drove on a suspended driver's license. Or, as the state Republican Party put it: "Secretive Lobbyist Fred DuVal Drove Months On Suspended Driver's License; Arrogant Washington Insider and Career Influence Peddler Avoids Telling Voters the Truth While He Continued to Run Afoul of State Law." Why, you might wonder, is Fred DuVal's driving record – or any of the myriad other "major" revelations about our various wanna-be leading lights -- such a major focus with just three weeks until election day? Because it works. "They are playing to the 10 percent of voters who haven't made up their mind and those are not people who are highly sensitive, informed people who are just sitting on the fence. There are almost none of those," pollster Michael O'Neil told me. "They are people who have, if anything, only the vaguest knowledge that there might be an election." In a close race, they are also the ones who just may decide who will run this state. Given that, those voters might want to ponder less about how Ducey ran his ice cream company and more about how he's going to run a state that's basically broke given his pledge to cut income taxes. They might want to fret less over DuVal's ties to a long-dead lobbyist for Saddam Hussein and more over how he'll boost funding for education without raising taxes given a projected $1.5 billion deficit over the next two years. As for the rest of us, we might want to consider how it has come to this here in the greatest nation on earth, where every candidate is political pond scum. Or so we are told. "Essentially nobody is liked and trusted and therefore a negative message is more believable than a positive message," O'Neil said. "So if you can make somebody think about the other guy and what a sleaze ball he is when they are going to vote, they'll hold their nose and vote for you, the alternative." Their mothers must be so proud.
Robert Robb seems to be in Libertarian mode in this column. Personally I am beginning to wonder. Did the founders of First Solar and create the company with the only purpose of getting millions in government handouts, and then walking away with the loot and closing down the company??? The more articles I read on it, the more I think that may be the case. First Solar and GT Advanced Technologies have recently been in the national news because of their contract to produce sapphire glass for Apple. http://www.azcentral.com/story/robertrobb/2014/10/14/gt-advanced-technologies-goes-bankrupt/17276225/ While we were deluding ourselves about Apple ... Robert Robb, columnist | azcentral.com 7:55 a.m. MST October 15, 2014 In March, 2011, First Solar announced plans to open a component manufacturing plant in Mesa's Gateway area. The plant would initially employ 600, ultimately ramping up to potentially 4,800. Gov. Jan Brewer called it "thrilling news" that "will propel Arizona into its second century." Don Cardon, then president of the Arizona Commerce Authority, proclaimed that the plant "truly trumpets to the globe this state's rank as a world leader in renewable energy." Mesa City Manager Chris Brady gushed that it "makes a statement that we are going to lead the way into the new industries for the future." The politicians and economic development bureaucrats didn't come to the party with empty pockets. They committed over $50 million in subsidies to the First Solar plant. Except that no solar components ever got built there. Instead, after constructing the thing, First Solar started trying to offload it, even at a loss. In November, 2013 a buyer was found. And if the politicians and economic development bureaucrats were thrilled with First Solar they were orgasmic about the new buyer, a veritable high-tech rock star. The governor's press release was headlined: "Governor Jan Brewer Welcomes Apple to Arizona." Apple's decision to buy the First Solar plant "speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating." According to current ACA President Sandra Watson, the purchase "represents an enormous win for our state and a historic investment in our community." "Apple's presence in the region will be a game-changer for the Greater Phoenix area," ordained Barry Broome, head of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council. Mesa Mayor Scott Smith bragged that "we were the Number 1 choice of one of the great iconic brands of the world." Steven Zylstra, president of the Arizona Technology Council, summed it up: "This deal epitomizes the fact that Arizona has finally come into its own." The politicians and economic development bureaucrats piled the subsidies even higher. But there were some problems. Apple wasn't really coming to town. It was buying the building, but then leasing it to a component supplier, GT Advanced Technologies, in an odd financial arrangement that should have raised more eyebrows than it did at the time. GT Advanced Technologies was to produce sapphire glass for Apple and set about to do that. But recently announced that it was declaring bankruptcy and shutting down the Mesa plant. It has asked a bankruptcy judge to release it from the contract with Apple, saying it "imposed oppressive and burdensome terms." Some hope Apple will take over the plant and produce the glass on its own. Perhaps it will. Perhaps it won't. If it does, that won't mean that the Phoenix metro area is the new leader of 21st Century global economy. And if it doesn't, that won't mean that the Valley is forever relegated to second-class economic status. It will be just another decision by another company with an incremental effect on our economic trajectory. Greater Phoenix has a $210 billion economy, with a workforce of 2 million, and about 70,000 businesses. There are hundreds of thousands of decisions made daily that have such incremental effects. While these two high-visibility projects were going bust, there were 124,000 jobs added in the Valley. Virtually all of them were created by companies you've never heard of. Politicians didn't issue press releases or hold press conferences to take credit for what they did. The economic development bureaucrats didn't shower them with subsidies. They just went about the grind-it-out business of trying to meet perceived market needs. A $210 billion economy isn't going to be meaningfully affected by the pretentions and exertions of our politicians and economic development bureaucrats directed at individual companies or particular locations. Only broad-based policies that affect all economic actors can have a measureable influence. We can debate what kinds of broad-based policies would be best, but that's the real game, not the give-away sideshows. F.A. Hayek called the notion that elites – whether political, academic or non-profit – could direct an economy "the fatal conceit." Rarely has the conceit been as thoroughly exposed as with the serially breathless proclamations about this particular site.
Personally I suspect the REAL reason these doctors are against Prop 303 is because it cuts into their government granted monopoly on prescribing drugs. Which will effect their wallets. I suspect they could are less about their patients. I do agree with their logic that many dying people may use drugs that won't cure them. But I think that is a decision that the dying person should make, not a money grubbing doctor. This also seems to be the reason the medical marijuana dispensaries want to keep it illegal for sick people to grow marijuana. It will cut into their profits. Not that anybody who grows marijuana will magically turn into a homicidal manic who will murder people as the cops would like us to believe. And of course it also seems to be the reason the marijuana dispensaries want to keep growing marijuana illegal for everybody except themselves if marijuana is legalized for recreational use. They want a government monopoly on growing and selling recreational marijuana that will make them rich. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2014/10/14/no-prop-303-right-to-try/17270791/ Doctors: Prop. 303 isn't in patients' best interests Jeff Schriber and 49 doctors, AZ We See It 4:04 p.m. MST October 14, 2014 Doctors: The "Right to Try" ballot question could open the floodgates for ineffective drugs with significant side effects. Proposition 303, the "Right to Try" ballot question, has its heart in the right place, but its mind, sadly, is not. It is important to know that 86 percent of drugs after a positive Phase 1 trial will prove to be less effective than current therapy. It gets worse, the proposition simply says you have to have completed, not passed, Phase 1. If you include these drugs, less than 6 percent will be beneficial. Patients who are the most desperate will be taking drugs, many with significant side effects with a very small chance of any benefit. This directly contradicts the "above all do no harm," which is part of our medical culture. A Phase 1 trial does not examine if the drug is effective. It simply determines if it might be safe, usually by testing normal volunteers. Fewer than half even pass this safety standard. As proposed, patients would potentially receive drugs with no proven benefit. There are also no provisions for who will pay for the drug and the treatment of any side effects. This will increase health-care costs for the individual but also for the taxpayer if patients are on Medicare or the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program. Effectively, patients may end up spending their last dollars on an ineffective therapy that could make them sicker. We need methods to potentially fast-track therapies that may help a terminally ill patient. However, making drugs available that have not passed even the basic safety aspect is misguided at best. There are mechanisms for compassionate-use trials, although they can be cumbersome at times. A new bill limited to drugs that have passed Phase 2 trials may be a model to consider. Drugs that pass this stage appear to be safe and effective. Patients can have a reasonable expectation that there may be a benefit with less safety concerns. Such a bill would minimize risks and could serve as a model for the country as a balance between risk to patients and offering hope for those in desperate need. Patients and families who face a terminal illness are often desperate and willing to try almost anything. Ideally they should discuss all options with their physicians. But if we are trying to make this issue one of health-care policy and access, we owe it to these patients to have a law that doesn't just tug at our heart but has a real chance to offer true hope. We owe them a law that doesn't endanger their health, doesn't have the potential for financial disaster and shows real promise in other patients. Involving cancer physicians and nurses and others who have an interest in crafting such a law would be a great first step. Sadly, Proposition 303 is not such a law, and we urge you to vote no on this measure. Jeff Schriber is the medical director of the Cancer Transplant Institute at the Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center. Forty-nine other doctors who oppose Prop. 303 have signed this piece. They are: Adrienne Briggs, Jonathon Abbas, Devinder Singh, James Choi, Andrew Buresh, Joan Dahmer, Pat Donovan, Giraldo Kato, Anjali Iyengar, Paul Wassermann, Michael Roberts, Henry Lee, Mazen Khattab, Peter Mathern, Sharon Ondreyco, John Bibb, Tania Cortas, Chenthilmurugan Rathnasabapathy, Matesh Sieethram, Jerry Lucas, Irene Taw, Deborah Lindquist, Manuel Modiano, Laurie Chen, Steven Ketchel, Raymond Taetle, Richard Rosenberg, Jeffrey Issacs, Tara Iyengar, Rajesh Kukunoor, Joseph Nabong, Jason Salganick, Harrison Bachrach, Puneet Bhalla, Marvin Chassin, Ian DeRoock, Neal Dharia, Nathaniel Fastenberg, Sujith Kalmadi, Roopesh Kantala, Parvinderjit Khanuja, Anita Kosyk-Szewczyk, Sumeet Mendonca, Michael Musci, Clayton Polowy, Mikhail Shtivelband, Larry Kasper, Martin Langford.
Phoenix City Council members owned by unions??? Yea, I know based on all the raises the Phoenix City Council has given the cops, it sounds like they are owned by the police unions. From this article it also sounds like the members of the Phoenix City Council are also owned by the construction unions. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/10/14/phoenix-council-union-business/17274173/ Phoenix council doing unions' bidding (again) The delay in construction will cost nearly $2 million Editorial board, The Republic | azcentral.com 5:01 p.m. MST October 14, 2014 The Phoenix City Council majority is at it again, doing the bidding of its political benefactors in organized labor. It started Oct. 1, when the council's agenda included the $103 million first stage of renovating Terminal 3 at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Preparations for this vote had been in motion for well over a year. General contractors had been selected. Plans were in place to begin moving airline and airport operations equipment out of the terminal. And then, Councilman Michael Nowakowski asked for a delay of two weeks. He had additional questions. "Nothing problematic," Nowakowski said. "Nothing to really stop it, but I would like these questions to be answered, and I recently received some concerns from people. So I would like to have some briefing from the staff." Nowakowski never explained what prompted his concerns or who those concerned "people" were. Staff told the council a delay would add $1.9 million to the cost. No matter. Mayor Greg Stanton and councilmembers Kate Gallego, Laura Pastor and Daniel Valenzuela joined Nowakowski in a 5-4 vote. On behalf of "concerns from people." Mayor Stanton declared he was sure "Nowakowski's request is in good faith." Others think not. In a furiously worded letter sent to the council a week later, representatives of the Arizona Builders Alliance and the Associated General Contractors called the vote "a mockery of the law" and a "thinly disguised attempt at a political payoff to organized labor." Mark Minter, executive director of the Arizona Builders Alliance, confirmed on Tuesday that representatives of the skilled-trades unions had arranged meetings with the project's general managers during the delay. "The general contractor has been approached by the trade unions," he said. "I believe they had a meeting scheduled for (Tuesday)." That's a meeting that couldn't have occurred without Nowakowski's "questions." Arizona law provides for an open and fair system for hiring sub-contractors and labor on public works projects. The law does not require union labor. This is at least the second time this year the council has looked out for its friends in organized labor. The same five council members delayed a routine approval of liquor licenses for the new owners of the Ranch Market supermarkets — a delay prompted by their allies in a food-handlers union that wanted to organize Ranch Market's workers. That time, the council's interference did not cost taxpayers financially. This time, the delays added at least $1.9 million to the cost of the design-build Terminal 3 project, and conceivably could threaten its completion timetable. Union labor — especially the skilled trades — can be an asset to big public-works projects like Terminal 3. It can be an assurance of quality workmanship. But rather than affirmatively promoting the assets that union trades bring to the table, the Phoenix council instead is operating by subterfuge. Tendentious kabuki-style gamesmanship — like the theatrical Oct. 1 council meeting — only raises questions about council members' motives. Prior to last fall's council elections, Councilman Valenzuela declared his commitment to the labor cause in a union bulletin. His observations are proving prescient: "With the increased engagement of unions on local races ... the tides of power are shifting to union-friendly members on city councils throughout Arizona." It is one thing to be "union friendly." It is quite another to be union friendly at the expense of taxpayers. The majority of the council is forgetting who it represents. The council is scheduled to reconsider its delay vote today. It is time to end this expensive charade.
Sure the Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment so we would have the tools to fight government tyrants. But it's also a nice tool to have to fight common criminals. Sadly many states like New York have flushed the Second Amendment down the toilet which means the people no longer have the tools needed to defend themselves against criminals. This bus started it's journey in New York City, and that may be the reason none of the passengers were armed. My understanding is that NYC pretty much has flushed the 2nd Amendment down the toilet, and I think New York state also has flushed the 2nd Amendment down the toilet. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/15/man-stabs-people-bus/17304157/ Man stabbing people on bus fatally shot Associated Press 9:14 a.m. MST October 15, 2014 HARTFORD, Conn. — A man who stabbed two passengers in a rampage aboard a casino-bound tour bus was shot to death on Interstate 95 by a Connecticut state trooper, who accidentally shot a third passenger, authorities said Wednesday. The mayhem on the Dahlia bus carrying about 24 passengers from Chinatown in New York City to the Mohegan Sun casino in southeastern Connecticut began around 10 p.m. Tuesday, state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said. The bus driver pulled over in a highway construction zone in Norwalk and flagged down a state trooper on duty at the site. Several people on the bus called 911, and the trooper was aware of the situation before confronting the man, Vance said. As the trooper approached the bus, the suspect and a passenger "were engaged in physical combat, rolled off the bus and onto the pavement of the highway," Vance said. The man, who has not been identified yet, also intentionally injured himself, Vance said. The trooper was forced to open fire when the suspect came at him with a "cutting instrument" and refused to drop the weapon, Vance said. The man died at a hospital. Two people were stabbed and another person suffered non-life threatening injuries when a bullet from the officer's gun ricocheted off the pavement. The three injured passengers were brought to Norwalk Hospital. Their conditions haven't been released. A hospital spokeswoman referred questions to state police. The trooper wasn't injured. His name hasn't been disclosed. The incident forced police to shut down the northbound lanes of I-95 for more than seven hours from late Tuesday to early Wednesday morning. Many people on the bus were Asian and state police were dealing with a language barrier in interviewing them, Vance said. A trooper was brought in to interpret. Police will "get all the facts and circumstances" from the passengers as part of the investigation, Vance said. A man who answered the phone at a listing for Dahlia in New York declined to comment Wednesday morning.
Lawsuit: Pastor knew he had AIDS, had affairs More of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our religious leaders, government masters and police??? Rev. Juan D. McFarland was also a drug user. I don't have a problem with that, other then he was a hypocrite if he preached against using drugs. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/14/pastor-aids-affairs-lawsuit/17271469/ Lawsuit: Pastor knew he had AIDS, had affairs Associated Press 3:38 p.m. MST October 14, 2014 MONTGOMERY, Ala. — After listening to his sermons for 24 years, parishioners of the Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church probably thought they knew the Rev. Juan D. McFarland. But from the very pulpit where he preached about God's love and service to the community, he delivered some stunning revelations: He had had affairs with women in the parish — and neglected to tell them he had AIDS. Perhaps because McFarland was so well-regarded, the church's deacons initially had sympathy. "It was surprise, shock, but I think the leadership team did not react wanting to get him out. We wanted to get him help," said James Long, vice chairman of the board of trustees. McFarland refused — and in a later sermon dropped another bombshell: He had been abusing drugs. That was enough. The deacons voted 80-1 to fire him on Oct. 5, but McFarland refused to leave, going so far as to change the building's locks and the numbers of the church's bank account before returning to the pulpit on Oct. 12, Long said. On Tuesday, the first business day following his last appearance, the deacons announced that they had filed a lawsuit to force McFarland out. The church's website portrays the pastor as a man of passion, prayer and purpose "whose life is centered in Jesus Christ." The suit describes McFarland as a man practicing "debauchery, sinfulness, hedonism, sexual misconduct, dishonesty, thievery and rejection of the Ten Commandments." It asks a judge to block him from serving as minister and give them control of the church complex, its bank accounts and a Mercedes Benz furnished for the pastor's use. "We are just trying to minister to the flock and get the church back in order," Long said. McFarland remained unfazed by the news. "I will command the pulpit from this day forward," he said in a brief telephone interview Tuesday. He declined further comment, saying he and his attorney needed more time to review the suit. He would not disclose his attorney's name. In a related development, Wells Fargo Bank filed court papers Tuesday saying that because McFarland sought to change control of the church's bank account, it can't determine who has the rightful claim to $56,211 in the account. It sent the court a check for the full amount and asked to be relieved of responsibility. Nathan Williams, chairman of the board of deacons, said the church normally has about 170 members show up each Sunday. Only about 50 heard McFarland's most recent sermon. Williams and other church leaders said they went elsewhere to avoid any confrontation. In the sermon, McFarland recounted stories from the books of Matthew and Luke about Jesus healing people. "Sometimes the worst times in our lives is when we have a midnight situation — and we are in a midnight situation," he said. "When you pray, you've got to forgive. You can't go down on your knees hating somebody, or wishing something bad will happen to somebody." An attorney for the church leaders said the sermons need to end. "He needs to get the message that he needs to be gone," attorney Julian McPhillips said. McFarland, 47, has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Knowingly spreading a sexually transmitted disease is a misdemeanor in Alabama punishable by up to a year in jail. Court records show McFarland had two marriages end in divorce after wives filed suit to end the unions. Neither complaint mentioned allegations of adultery or other wrongdoing. Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church was founded in 1919. McFarland became pastor in 1990, and the church built a new complex near Alabama State University in 1993.
Personally I am against executing people for crimes. Not that some criminals don't deserve it, but because mistakes will be made and innocent people will be executed. Currently DNA tests have freed 300+ people by proving they were framed by the police for crimes they didn't commit. Many of these people were on death row, scheduled to be murdered by the government for a crime they didn't commit. Also it's amusing because I suspect that our government rulers are switching to executing people by lethal injection as a politically correct way to humanely murder people. With all the recent botched lethal injections it looks like that is backfiring on them. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/14/oklahoma-botched-execution-lawsuit/17260621/ Man sues over brother's botched execution Associated Press 12:50 p.m. MST October 14, 2014 OKLAHOMA CITY — The botched execution of an Oklahoma inmate last spring that led to a moratorium while the state reconsidered its lethal injection protocols was "barbaric" and violated the inmate's constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment, his brother contends in a lawsuit. In his lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, Gary Lockett says the April 29 execution of his brother Clayton Lockett, which took nearly an hour to complete, also contradicted international law and "elementary concepts of human decency." "The barbaric spectacle was a disgrace to the people of the United States of America and brought shame to the state of Oklahoma," he contends. Clayton Lockett, a convicted murderer, writhed on the gurney, mumbled and strained to lift his head during the execution. Executions typically take about 10 minutes to complete, but officials called a halt to Lockett's execution about 30 minutes into it because it was obvious something was wrong. He was declared dead 43 minutes after the procedure began, and although the doctor who oversaw the execution said at the time that he died of a heart attack, the official state autopsy determined that the drugs killed him. It was the first execution in which Oklahoma used the sedative midazolam as part of a three-drug lethal injection combination. A state Department of Public Safety investigation determined that the problems during the botched execution were caused by the poor placement of a single intravenous line, not the drugs. The poorly placed IV line resulted in the drugs being pumped into Lockett's muscle tissue, instead of directly into his bloodstream. Since Lockett's execution, the state's execution protocols have been rewritten to include more training and better equipment for the execution team, and the amount of midazolam used in a lethal injection has been increased by five times. Oklahoma's next scheduled execution is Nov. 13, but attorneys for the state last week requested a delay of at least another 60 days to give prison officials more time to obtain the necessary drugs and train the execution team. In his lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Clayton Lockett's estate, Gary Lockett contends that by using a new lethal injection formula, his brother was "cast in the unwitting role of human lab rat." He named as defendants Gov. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma prison officials, members of the execution team, the manufacturers of the drugs and the compounding pharmacies that mixed them. The lawsuit seeks an award of damages for the "physical and psychological suffering" inflicted upon Clayton Lockett, as well as attorney fees and costs. Clayton Lockett was convicted of shooting 19-year-old Stephanie Nieman with a sawed-off shotgun and watching as two accomplices buried her alive in 1999.
Jury awards millions in street preacher's death But please, don't hold your breath waiting for the cops who murdered Marvin Booker to be sent to prison. Hell, don't hold your breath waiting for them to be charged with a crime. It ain't gonna happen. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/14/street-preacher-death-deputies/17260463/ Jury awards millions in street preacher's death Associated Press 12:44 p.m. MST October 14, 2014 Denver Department of Safety DENVER — A federal jury on Tuesday found five Denver sheriff's deputies used excessive force against a homeless street preacher who died in the city's downtown jail and awarded his family a record $4.65 million in damages, a verdict an attorney said should send a message to law enforcement everywhere. Marvin Booker died in 2010 after deputies shocked him with a Taser while he was handcuffed, put him in a sleeper hold and lay on top of him, apparently in an effort to control him. His family's attorneys said that was a zealous overreaction to the 56-year-old, who was frail and suffered a heart condition. The city had argued the deputies' actions were in line with the department's policies for subduing a combative inmate. "He didn't deserve what these five sheriff's did to him that night," his brother, Spencer Booker, said, fighting tears after the verdict. "The jury spoke very, very, very clearly that they used excessive force against my brother. Your actions call for consequences." The three-week civil trial came amid calls for a federal investigation of the department over other high-profile abuse cases that prompted the sheriff's department to make sweeping reforms. Former Sheriff Gary Wilson resigned in July as the city agreed to pay $3.3 million to settle another federal jail-abuse lawsuit by a former inmate over a beating. It had been the largest payout in city history to settle a civil rights case. The all-white, seven-member jury began deliberating Friday and delivered its verdict just before noon Tuesday. "The community won't tolerate this anymore, and things have to change," Booker family attorney Darold Killmer said. "This verdict should reverberate around the country. This is a sign that people are not going to put up with it anymore." Thomas Rice, an attorney representing the city, left without commenting. City officials did not immediately return calls for comment. Booker's family filed the federal lawsuit against the city and county of Denver as well as deputies Faun Gomez, James Grimes, Kyle Sharp and Kenneth Robinette and Sgt. Carrie Rodriguez. Inmates told investigators that the struggle began when he was ordered to sit down in the jail's booking area but instead moved to collect his shoes, which he had taken off for comfort. Booker, who was arrested on an outstanding warrant for drug possession, was cursing and refusing to follow orders, according to the deputies' account. He was restrained by deputies who got on top of him, placed him in a sleeper hold, handcuffed him and shocked him with a stun gun. During the trial, Booker's attorneys told jurors deputies stunned him for too long and should have backed down when Booker said he was struggling to breathe. In his closing arguments, Killmer described a "dogpile" of deputies. "Mr. Booker was essentially doing a pushup with all those deputies on his back," he said, adding that the department then tried to "whitewash" the incident with a shoddy investigation. Among other mistakes, Killmer said the deputy who stunned Booker submitted the wrong Taser for analysis and questioned whether the right one was ever found. Denver's medical examiner said Booker died of cardiorespiratory arrest during restraint, and ruled his death a homicide. The report listed other factors in his death, including emphysema, an enlarged heart and recent cocaine use. Rice said Booker's heart problems caused his death, and a healthier inmate would have survived the encounter. The deputies "hadn't the slightest notion that Mr. Booker had a heart condition," Rice told jurors. "The bad heart was the trigger." Prosecutors declined to charge the deputies. Sheriff's department officials never disciplined them, saying it was reasonable for the deputies to believe he could harm someone and that force was necessary to restrain him.
Iowa Libertarian candidate killed in plane crash Only in government do they do insane things like put the names of dead people on an election ballot: "Butzier's name will remain on ballots since the deadline for substituting candidates has passed" http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/14/iowa-libertarian-candidate-plane-crash/17273273/ Iowa Libertarian candidate killed in plane crash A plane crash in Iowa claims the life of a Libertarian senate candidate. AP 4:06 p.m. MST October 14, 2014 DUBUQUE, Iowa — A Dubuque doctor who was running as a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate was killed when the small plane he was piloting crashed, a hospital spokeswoman said Tuesday. Dr. Douglas Butzier was pronounced dead following the crash of a fixed wing single-engine plane around 11 p.m. Monday near Dubuque Regional Airport, according to the Dubuque County Sheriff's Office. He was the sole occupant of the aircraft. Butzier, 59, worked at Mercy Medical Center-Dubuque. He was president of the medical staff and as a member of the Mercy Board of Trustees, said Jennifer Faley, a hospital spokeswoman. Butzier was running for U.S. Senate as the Libertarian candidate against Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley and Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst. The race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin is one of the closest in the nation and third party candidates, including Butzier, were getting 2 percent or less in recent independent opinion polls. "He was a leader among his peers, and we will all miss his strong, intelligent, thoughtful presence, and we express our collective condolences to Doug's family, friends, and colleagues," said hospital president and CEO Russell Knight in a statement. Both Braley and Ernst released statements expressing sadness at the news of Butzier's death. Butzier's name will remain on ballots since the deadline for substituting candidates has passed, said Iowa Secretary of State spokesman Chance McElhaney in a statement. "He's was an outstanding individual, an emergency room doctor, an outstanding citizen, politician, and a great guy," said Libertarian Party of Iowa Chairman Keith Laube, a candidate for state treasurer. "Our condolences go out to his family." Additional information about what caused the crash has not been released. Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Lynn Lunsford said the plane took off from Ankeny Regional Airport about an hour before the crash. The National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA will investigate.
'So, we post the "35 mph at all times" speed limit to assure that schools ... remain as safe as possible' When cops take about "safety" it's usually a code word for raising revenue. Kind of like "photo radar" is also a code word for raising revenue. Let's face it, it's not about safety, it's not about "the children", it's about shaking down motorists to raise revenue for the special interest groups that help elect the members of the Tempe City Council. And one of those special interest groups is the police union. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/10/15/tempe-speed-law-schools-expanded-use/17299797/ Tempe speed law near schools reflects expanded use The Republic | azcentral.com 8:44 a.m. MST October 15, 2014 Question: In Tempe, there are 35 mph speed limits posted near schools "at all times," which is different than many other Southeast Valley communities. I find myself the only driver slowing. It is incredibly frustrating to have others fly past me, or tailgate me, while I'm trying to obey the law. At 9 p.m., when I've left a lecture at the Tempe Museum at Rural Road and Southern Avenue, could we not assume there are no children around the school two blocks east? So why 35 mph "at all times," especially when there is no enforcement, as far as I can tell? Answer: Our schools no longer have standardized start/stop times. The times are staggered based on the needs of the schools and the students that attend. Additionally, our neighborhood schools no longer are open only on "traditional" school days. They now are the center of many community-based activities, and as such are open during non-typical days and hours. For example, there are multiple athletic activities/practices that occur before and after school every day. There are school-sponsored performing-arts activities, such as plays and musical performances, that occur in the late afternoon or evening hours, and parent-teacher meetings also are in the late afternoon or evening hours. So, we post the "35 mph at all times" speed limit to assure that schools, which also function as community gathering places, remain as safe as possible. We focus our enforcement on the times and areas when there is a demonstrated need. We do work additional/enhanced enforcement details during activities, such as Friday-night football games and school dances, to maintain traffic flow and provide for the safety of those who attend and the community. Lt. Randy Wilson has been with the Tempe Police Department for 19 years. He manages the Traffic Bureau, which is responsible for enforcing Arizona and Tempe traffic laws and ordinances. E-mail public-safety questions for your police or fire department to lee.shappell@arizonarepublic.com. Put "public-safety question" in the subject line.
First Amendment null and void in Peoria, Arizona??? I suspect that it already is illegal for elected officials to vote on issues where there is a conflict of interest. I think they are required to say they have a conflict of interest and not vote. But don't count on our royal government rulers obeying the law when it gets in the way of giving our money to their special interest groups. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/peoria/2014/10/15/peoria-may-ban-people-political-process/17288891/ Peoria may ban some people from political process Jackee Coe, The Republic | azcentral.com 7:26 a.m. MST October 15, 2014 Leaders of some non-profit organizations in Peoria would be barred from running for local office, making campaign contributions and even endorsing City Council candidates under a proposal working its way through City Hall. Such prohibitions, which appear to be the first of their kind in Arizona, would apply to directors, executives and managers of organizations that receive a portion of their funding from the city, said Councilman Ben Toma, who proposed the policy that has been fast-tracked by the City Council. One of Toma's competitors in the November election heads such an organization, though the proposal would not affect her candidacy. First Amendment experts and other critics of the plan call it an unconstitutional violation of individual rights and an attack on a competitor, but Toma said it is an effort to avoid conflicts of interest. "When you're running the whole organization and you start giving hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars to ... a particular candidate, even if it's a foregone conclusion, the issue is you've now given money to a candidate that will probably be voting and setting your budget for the next year or negotiating your contract," Toma said. "To me, that's a dangerous place to be." Mayor Bob Barrett and First Amendment experts said banning individuals from participating in the political process violates their constitutional rights. "Everybody has a right to support any political action or activity that they want to," Barrett said. "A personal donation is not an action by (an organization)." Barrett said Toma, who was appointed in June to fill a vacancy in the Mesquite District and is running for the seat, proposed the policy to make "life miserable" for Bridget Binsbacher, who works for a Peoria non-profit. Barrett has endorsed Binsbacher. First Amendment attorney Dan Barr said the proposed policy violates the U.S. Constitution. "The people who are running these non-profits can make their own decisions about whether it's in their interest or not to make such donations. But it's not for the city of Peoria to determine that," Barr said. "And given the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the areas of campaign finance in the past few years, I'm pretty confident that such a restriction would be struck down as unconstitutional." City staff members still are working on a framework of the policy, Deputy City Manager Jeff Tyne said. They will present that to City Council members, who will determine the specifics of that policy before voting on it. Some organizations that receive financial benefits from the city include the West Valley Art Museum, which is housed in Peoria City Hall; Theater Works, which operates the city-owned Peoria Center for the Performing Arts; and the Peoria Diamond Club, which runs the box office at the Peoria Sports Complex and donates hundreds of volunteer hours every year during spring training. Binsbacher is the executive director of the Peoria Diamond Club. Federal law prohibits all 501(c)3 organizations from engaging in any political activity, but does not limit individuals who work for non-profits, City Attorney Steve Kemp said. Peoria has policies prohibiting certain people who contract with the city from participating in city elections, but it does not have one for leaders of non-profits. Toma called that an "obvious loophole" that needs to be closed. The Peoria Diamond Club has gotten "significantly involved" in city politics, he said, because of Binsbacher's candidacy. "There's really no difference" between an individual if they are a leader of a partner non-profit and the non-profit itself, Toma said, because the non-profits are "basically entirely dependent upon the city for their funding and for their existence." "Ultimately, the question is 'Who's paying the person?' and what it comes down to in the Peoria Diamond Club's case is that the city is paying for (Binsbacher's) salary," Toma said. "To me, that would make you unqualified to run for and hold public office." Toma said he's not making a political attack, but acknowledged Binsbacher's candidacy "brought the issue to light to me." Brian Derrick, board president for the Peoria Diamond Club, disputed Toma's funding claims and called the proposal "asinine." He said the organization receives $64,000 annually from the city, which is a portion of spring-training profits. Its total expenses in 2012, according to the most recent tax documents, were about $400,000. Binsbacher's salary is paid from funds the non-profit raises through donations and charity events, not the proceeds from the city, Derrick said. "These are not issues he would bring up if Bridget wasn't in the election," he said. "It's just part of his campaign to weaken an opponent. It's just politics. It's dirty politics at a local level." Binsbacher, who has said she would resign from her job if elected, said she felt the proposed policy was directed at her. She said the proposed policy could impact "every candidate that's ever run for public office." "These contributions and the support come from relationships that have been established over the years of working together ... and a long history of being involved in the community," Binsbacher said. Toma acknowledged concerns about limiting individuals' rights, but said that is not his goal. People sometimes voluntarily surrender some rights to do certain things, such as going into a public building where guns are prohibited. This, he said, would be no different. "The point is not to take away their rights," Toma said. "They have a right to do whatever they want. They have a right not to work there if they want to get involved in politics." Toma and Binsbacher are in a three-way race that includes Ken Krieger, a candidate whose name twice was left off the ballot. The November election will serve as a primary, with a run-off election in March, if necessary.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/10/15/prison-health-care-settlement-may-add-ariz-deficit/17289035/ Prison health-care settlement may add to Ariz. deficit Settlement agreement reached in class-action lawsuit filed by ACLU, one week before trial. Bob Ortega, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:13 p.m. MST October 14, 2014 Arizona must significantly improve health-care and mental-health-care treatment for about 33,000 prison inmates under a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought in 2012 by prison-rights groups. That suit charged that the state unconstitutionally denies adequate care to inmates in state prisons and routinely keeps mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement under brutal conditions. Under the settlement announced Tuesday, the state does not admit any wrongdoing. The settlement would reduce the amount of time mentally ill inmates spend in solitary confinement and would restrict guards' use of pepper spray to control those inmates. Spray could be used only to prevent serious injury or escape. Corrections also agreed to meet more than 100 separate health-care performance measures and to allow attorneys for the prisoners to monitor compliance. "This has been a broken system for a long time," said David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project. "This settlement will help ensure that prison inmates get the care they need." The likely cost to the state couldn't immediately be determined. The Legislature's Finance Advisory Committee already projects a $520 million budget shortfall for the current fiscal year and up to a $1 billion shortfall next fiscal year. In part, that is due to a court order for the state to boost education spending by $1.6 billion over the next five years, after the Legislature's failure to properly fund schools under a voter-approved formula. The settlement terms call on Arizona's Department of Corrections to ask the state Legislature for funding to increase medical, dental and mental-health care staffing. Corrections currently pays its contract health-care provider, Corizon Health Inc., about $125 million a year under a 2013 contract that can be renewed until 2018. Donald Specter, executive director of the Prison Law Office of San Quentin, Calif., a firm involved in the suit, noted that, for Corrections, complying with the settlement doesn't depend on whether legislators provide more funding. "The settlement says that they have to meet these measures," he said. "If they don't, the court can issue further orders to ensure compliance." Corrections spokesman Doug Nick said the department is "analyzing the cost implications" of the settlement, which still must be approved by a U.S. District Court. Director Charles Ryan declined to be interviewed. He provided a written statement saying that, by avoiding trial, Corrections "saves significant resources that can be further directed towards continuing to provide constitutional healthcare." The suit, however, cited internal Corrections e-mails to argue that Ryan and other officials knowingly, intentionally and systematically provided inadequate medical care that did not meet standards. For example, the suit cited an inmate whose pleas for care were ignored for two years while cancer swelled his liver to four times its normal size and then killed him. Many cases of inmates waiting months and even years to be treated for fractures, broken teeth and other serious medical issues were also cited. The proposed settlement also requires Corrections to let seriously mentally ill inmates held in maximum-security solitary confinement out of their windowless cells for a minimum of 19 hours a week. That time is to include: • Ten hours a week during which inmates will be able to interact with other inmates. • Six hours a week of exercise time. • Three hours of mental-health, psychological and educational programs. "We think it will mitigate, though not eliminate, some of the worst and most damaging features of solitary confinement for people with serious mental illness," Fathi said. He estimated that 125 to 200 maximum-security inmates would fall into this category. In a written statement, Ryan disputed the use of the term "solitary confinement" for inmates in maximum-security housing, maintaining that "no such confinement exists in our institutions." However, maximum-security inmates are confined alone in windowless cells for at least 23 hours a day. Those inmates have been allowed out of their cells for a maximum of six hours a week to exercise — alone in a separate, windowless room. As of the end of September, 3,317 inmates were being held in maximum-security cells, according to Corrections data. More than a third of them were imprisoned for non-violent crimes, according to state data. Officials often assign non-violent inmates to maximum-security housing for disruptive behavior or violating rules. As The Republic reported in 2012, Corrections routinely has punished inmates whose serious mental illnesses led to behavioral issues by putting them in solitary confinement. Being alone for 23 hours a day or more often causes mental illnesses to grow more severe, so many states bar the practice, said Craig Haney, a psychologist at the University of California-Santa Cruz who studies the effects of incarceration. At the time the suit was filed, 9 percent of Arizona inmates were kept in maximum-security solitary confinement. They accounted for half of all prison suicides. The settlement requires sweeping changes, largely meant to ensure that inmates are screened for health problems when they arrive in the system and then are provided care without the long delays and lack of responses the lawsuit cited. Inmates who are on suicide watch have to be seen by a mental-health clinician daily. Inmates with severe mental illness, and any on psychotropic medications, also must be seen by clinicians regularly, among other requirements. Inmates affected by the proposed settlement will be able to comment, Fathi said. He said he expects the two sides to agree on a proposed notice within a few weeks. Then, inmates likely will have 30 days to comment. He said it may be two months or so before the settlement is approved by the court. On the beat Bob Ortega is a senior reporter specializing in coverage of the U.S.-Mexican border. In 2012, Ortega previously covered Arizona's prisons system, producing a report that documented the high number of inmates who die as a result of prison violence, neglect and mistreatment while incarcerated. How to reach him bob.ortega @arizonarepublic.com Phone: 602-444-8926 Twitter: @bob_ortega Online series: Read the original reporting on prison medical issues at prisons .azcentral .com.
Denver police propaganda video on marijuana candyIn this article it sounds like the Denver cops are using some fear mongering to demonize recreational marijuana.Yea, like people are going to purchase marijuana candy that cost $300+ an ounce and give it to children. Of course even there are some wacko people that are willing to give $300+ an ounce to give marijuana candy to kids, it wouldn't hurt the kiddies. They would just sleep it off and be back to normal the next day. If some evil person wants to hurt the kiddies I am sure they would buy rat poison for a few bucks a can and use it instead of $300+ an ounce recreational marijuana. Last I wonder why on earth are the Denver Police wasting our tax dollars making silly movies like this??? Here is the URL of the video put out by the Denver cops - It's pretty boring, don't let your kiddies eat candy that might have marijuana in it:
|
||
|
The Denver police department warns parents of marijuana-infused Halloween candy By Hunter Schwarz October 14 at 9:43 AM Regular candy and marijuana edibles can look alike, so parents should be cautious, one Denver dispensary owner said in a Denver Police Department video. (via Denver Police YouTube channel) The Denver Police Department cautioned parents about marijuana edibles on Halloween in a video posted to its YouTube page Monday. In the video, Patrick Johnson, owner of Urban Dispensary, says that edibles, or candy coated in habiscus hash oil, account for anywhere from 20 percent to 30 percent of his gross sales, and are indistinguishable from regular candy. “Once that candy dries, there’s really no way to tell the difference between infused and candy that’s not infused,” Johnson said. “Some of these products look so similar to candy that’s been on the market that we’ve eaten as children that there’s really no way for a child or a parent or even anybody, even an expert in the field, to tell you whether or not a product is infused or not.” Manufacturers typically infuse knockoff candy bought in bulk, so Johnson said parents should toss any candy that isn’t in familiar packaging or in a tampered package.
Our failing war against the Islamic StateOur failing war against the Islamic State If killing people for money sounds moral and ethical to you, don't think of this as failure of the American military. Think of it as another successful government welfare program for the corporations in the military industrial complex. And if Obama decides to invade, sure that will fail too, but it will probably be another successful government jobs program for generals. Kinda like the "war on drugs" is a very successful jobs program for cops. Despite the "war on drugs" being a dismal failure in all other respects. Our failing war against the Islamic State By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer October 13 at 8:19 PM It’s not too soon to state the obvious: At this point, the war against the Islamic State can be seen only as failing. U.S.-led air power has barely been able to keep the jihadist militants from capturing the Syrian town of Kobane, near the Turkish border — and the besieged city may yet fall. Far to the southeast, Islamic State fighters have come within a few miles of Baghdad and threaten to consolidate their control of the vast Anbar Province, the Sunni heartland of Iraq. The self-proclaimed “caliphate” remains intact, and its forces are advancing. Eugene Robinson writes a twice-a-week column on politics and culture, contributes to the PostPartisan blog, and hosts a weekly online chat with readers. In a three-decade career at The Post, Robinson has been city hall reporter, city editor, foreign correspondent in Buenos Aires and London, foreign editor, and assistant managing editor in charge of the paper’s Style section. Intervention by the world’s mightiest military force has produced no shock and no awe. To be sure, U.S. and coalition airstrikes are inflicting some damage on Islamic State troops and equipment. But the bombing has done virtually nothing to alter the strategic balance of power — or to boost the fortunes of our ostensible allies on the ground, the “moderate” Syrian rebels and the hapless Iraqi military. Why, then, are we fighting this war? President Obama was reluctant — for good reason — to get involved in the Syrian civil war or renew U.S. military involvement in Iraq. His airstrikes-only strategy reflects that caution. But results so far suggest the president might as well have followed his original instincts and stayed out. Asked at a conference in Cairo about the desperate situation in Kobane, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that Kobane does not “define” the U.S.-led coalition’s strategy in taking on the Islamic State. Kerry added that “the focus of where we ought to be focusing first . . . is in Iraq.” But it is in Iraq where the Islamic State has been taking new territory and consolidating earlier gains. Jihadist militants are fighting for control of key cities in Anbar province, such as Fallujah and Ramadi, and they have even launched attacks in the Abu Ghraib district, on the outskirts of sprawling Baghdad. U.S. forces recently conducted helicopter missions to ease the threat that the militants might seize areas around the city’s international airport. No one thinks the Islamic State has the wherewithal to take Baghdad, which would be fiercely defended by Shiite militias and what is left of the Iraqi army. But no one thinks that airstrikes alone will be enough to dislodge the Islamic State from the Iraqi territory it holds. “They’re winning and we’re not,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday on CNN. The Obama administration responds that its strategy will take time to implement. In Kerry’s words: “We expect, as we have said, there will be ups and downs.” But patience is justified only if there is a reasonable expectation that the myriad political obstacles barring the path toward success can be overcome. I’m not sure whether the president and his aides are guilty of optimism or self-delusion. The situation in Kobane is illustrative. The border town is well within range of Turkish artillery, which could easily devastate the Islamic State’s battle formations. Yet the Turks do not fire — nor do they allow Turkish Kurds to cross the border and aid their Syrian brethren. They have, however, allowed thousands of Islamist fighters to pass through Turkey on their way to join the fight to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. On Sunday, U.S. officials said the Turkish government had decided to allow the use of Incirlik air base for operations against the Islamic State. On Monday, Turkish officials issued a statement saying that no such decision had been made. What’s with the Turks? They want the U.S.-led coalition’s goals to include Assad’s ouster. Specifically, they want the establishment of a buffer zone — which would be a no-fly zone for Assad’s aircraft — that could shelter refugees on the Syrian side of the border. But Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, said Sunday that such a zone is not seen “as essential to the goal of degrading and ultimately destroying” the Islamic State. In Iraq, the Islamic State will not be defeated as long as it has the support, or at least the acquiescence, of large segments of the nation’s Sunni minority. This will not change as long as Sunnis view the jihadist militants as a bulwark against the Shiite majority and its sectarian militias. Obama knew from the beginning that these — and other — problems in Iraq and Syria are essentially political and can’t be solved by military action alone. So tell me again: What, exactly, do we think our bombs are accomplishing? Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.
US governemnt helps royal UAE rullers terrorize their citizens???When I was involved with Amnesty International we used to write a lot of letters to the royal rulers of UAE or United Arab Emirates asking them to free political prisoners in their country. Also a couple of our members were students at ASU who were from the United Arab Emirates and came to speak at a meeting about how the royal rulers of the UAE were terrorizing their citizens. I kind of doubt this military equipment will be used for an "Arab peacekeeping force" as the article says. That was probably in a propaganda press release put out by the Pentagon and the reporter just copied it word for word. I suspect this military equipment will be used by the royal rulers of the UAE to terrorize their citizens. These 4,500 military trucks are being sent to a country that is only 32,000 square miles in size. If that were a square it would only be about 180 miles on each side. It's probably a third or a fourth of the land area of Arizona. It has 9 million people which is a little bigger then the 6.5 million people in Arizona. MRAP sale to Emirates may enable regional military force Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY 4:43 p.m. EDT October 13, 2014 WASHINGTON — The tiny, oil-rich nation United Arab Emirates could be laying the foundation for an Arab peacekeeping force by seeking to buy more than 4,500 roadside-bomb protected trucks from the Pentagon, according to a U.S. government official. The proposed sale was announced late last month by the State Department without indication of their use by peacekeepers. The transaction could net the Pentagon $2.5 billion and install a large fleet of armored, roadside-bomb-resistant trucks for use in the troubled region. It follows a series of meetings in recent years between officials from the United States, UAE and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional group of six Middle Eastern nations to establish joint security forces in the region. The sale of as many as 4,569 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) trucks could equip a force of Arab nations that has yet to be created, said the U.S. government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to discuss the sale publicly. In December, President Obama signed an order determining "that the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to the Gulf Cooperation Council will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace." The members of the GCC are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Pentagon credited the trucks with saving the lives and limbs of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan where improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the top killer. There are several troubled countries in the region, including Iraq once again where the threat to a potential peacekeeping force from IEDs, would be high. Peacekeepers would operate like the African Union, a coalition of African nations that pools resources and troops. Last week, for example, African Union forces along with troops from Somalia — many traveling in MRAPs — chased al-Qaeda-linked rebels from a town in the southern part of that country. Most the troops from the coalition came from six African countries. A spokesman for the UAE embassy declined to comment on the sale of the MRAPs and what they would be used for. The UAE has about 51,000 active-duty members of its armed forces, according to published reports citing the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. By contrast, the U.S. Army plans to keep about 8,000 MRAPs — half of them in mothballs — for a force of about 500,000 soldiers. "The MRAPs are for the legitimate defense and security requirements of the UAE," said Navy Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "The vehicles will be used to increase force protection, to conduct humanitarian assistance operations, and to protect vital international commercial trade routes and critical infrastructure. Additionally, these MRAPs will enhance UAE's burden-sharing capacity and defensive capabilities." The Pentagon and State Department support the sale, Smith said. The UAE may not buy the entire amount approved for sale. The trucks, whose V-shaped hulls, armor and raised chassis, protect troops riding inside from the blast from bombs buried in roads. The sale makes sense, said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense expert at the Brookings Institution, at least as much from a business perspective as a peacekeeping one. The Pentagon bought about 28,000 MRAPs when the wars raged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it's trying to divest itself of the vehicles, which are heavy and lack maneuverability. "I don't expect a huge payoff in terms of peacekeeping," O'Hanlon said. "Almost anything would be an improvement, but this should probably be viewed in large part as a lucrative arms export deal more than a hugely promising increase in regional peacekeeping capacity. That doesn't make it a bad idea but should perhaps remind us to restrain our expectations." The purchase is also in keeping with the UAE's pursuit of advanced weaponry to defend the wealthy nation of just 5 million people. Last year, for instance, the UAE bought 25 F-16 fighter jets, part of a $10 billion sale of advanced weapons to Middle East states. UAE pilots are flying F-16s, along with U.S. and other Arab allies, in sorties against Islamic State targets in Syria. They've also sought advanced U.S. anti-missile systems with an eye toward Iran, which lays across the Persian Gulf. "The Emiratis are gearing up. Iran. The Caliphate. All comers," said John Pike, executive director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy website. "They are serious. They are not to be messed with and they want to make sure that everybody knows they are not to be messed with." Follow @tvandenbrook on Twitter.
Report: Hitler was on crystal methI would make my usual comment of more of the old "Do as I say, not as I do" from our government masters and police??? But many of those drugs may have been legal in the time Hitler was living. Marijuana wasn't made illegal at the Federal level till 1937 in the USA. I am not sure when Uncle Sam required prescriptions to purchase barbiturates and amphetamines. I know when I was in high school we used to go down to Nogales, Mexico and legally buy barbiturates and amphetamines. Report: Hitler was on crystal meth Neal Colgrass, Newser staff 10:21 a.m. EDT October 14, 2014 (NEWSER) – Adolf Hitler apparently relied on a stunning array of drugs while ruling Nazi Germany, including one made popular by the show Breaking Bad: crystal meth. According to a 47-page U.S. military dossier, a physician filled the Fuhrer with barbiturate tranquilizers, morphine, bulls' semen, a pill that contained crystal meth, and other drugs, depending on Hitler's momentary needs, the Daily Mail reports. By this account, Hitler downed crystal meth before a 1943 meeting with Mussolini in which the Fuhrer ranted for two hours, and took nine shots of methamphetamine while living out his last days in his bunker. The dossier's allegations will be considered in a British TV documentary this weekend called Hitler's Hidden Drug Habit, the Times of Israel reports. Just who was Hitler's dealer? Named Theodor Morell, he succeeded as a Berlin doctor despite his unconventional methods and controversial past. Revelations that he had treated Jews hurt his business in 1933, and many thought he appeared Jewish; Hitler's inner circle disliked both his appearance and his practices, according to the Times. A U.S. collector who found the dossier also criticized Morell, calling him "a quack and a fraud and a snake oil salesman." Yet Hitler trusted him until the Nazis fell in 1945. Hitler's alleged use of other drugs, like cocaine and amphetamines, has already been documented — the International Business Times mentions two documentaries that cover it — but his apparent reliance on 74 drugs, including crystal meth, adds to the portrait of a hypochondriac ruling Nazi Germany while high. (Another recent documentary alleges that Hitler was a billionaire tax dodger.) This article originally appeared on Newser: Report: Hitler Was on Crystal Meth Newser is a USA TODAY content partner providing general news, commentary and coverage from around the Web. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. |
||