Select Page ::

Letter: Remember the USS Liberty – The Columbian

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

A A

On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the U. S. naval intelligence ship the USS Liberty. In the morning hours, Israeli aircraft observed the Liberty, then attacked in the afternoon with aircraft and torpedo boats. Strafing by the aircraft and machine gun fire from the torpedo boats destroyed the life boats that had been lowered. The torpedo boats launched six torpedoes, only one of which struck the ship, creating a 40-foot hole in the hull. The ship didnt sink but 34 were killed and 172 wounded.

Intercepted communications between the Israeli pilots and their ground control show that some pilots questioned attacking what was considered an ally. The ground control replied, Yes, follow orders.

A resourceful operator managed to broadcast a mayday. Defensive U.S. aircraft were launched from a nearby carrier but were recalled by the White House. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara reportedly stated, President Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors.

The whole truth about this tragic event will never be known because the survivors were prohibited from talking and many of the taped communications were destroyed. In recent years, survivors have spoken out, and a few books on the subject were written.

Follow this link:

Letter: Remember the USS Liberty - The Columbian

OC Congressman Defends Painting Of Hijab-Clad Lady Liberty – CBS Los Angeles

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

August 10, 2017 10:37 AM

SANTA ANA (CBSLA.com) A small but highly symbolic painting hanging on the wall of an Orange County Congressmans office is being criticized by some activists as unpatriotic.

The Claremont-based activist group We The People says a student art project in Democratic Rep. Lou Correas Santa Ana office depicting the Statue of Liberty wearing an Islamic-style hijab violates the separation of church and state.

Correa posted a photo of the painting on his Instagram account with the following caption: There are some who #hate this painting and want me to take it down. I see a young woman who is trying very hard to show people that she is an #American. If I took down her #art, Id be telling the world her experiences dont matter and she did something wrong. This is her country too, and she earned that spot on my wall.

In a video showing the activist group confronting Correas staff at his office, one of the constituents argues that any women wearing a hijab signifies she is a devout Muslim.

He then points to a collection of photos of veterans on another wall of Correas office and says the Lady Liberty is insulting the memories of fallen U.S. servicemen and servicewomen.

A Correa staffer is heard explaining the painting was made by a fourth-place finalist in an art contest sponsored by Correa.

Sir, just because you find it offensive, there may be other residents who would not find it offensive,the staffer tells the group.

Correa a first-term congressman told the Orange County Register some activists affiliated with We The People Rising attended a May 30 town hall on immigration, where three people were arrested after the event was stopped due to disruptions.

The House Office of General Counsel advised Correa that there was no legal issue with having the painting at his office, The Register reported.

A spokesman for Correa told CBS2 the office has received threats in response to the painting and has been instructed by U.S. Capitol Police not to further comment.

About Us

Advertise

Business Development

Contact Corporate

Mobile

Connect

CBS Television Public File

CBS Radio Public File

See the original post here:

OC Congressman Defends Painting Of Hijab-Clad Lady Liberty - CBS Los Angeles

Political correctness attacks the entire learning process – Washington Examiner

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

The diversity memo written by a now-fired Google engineer instigated days of debate this week, sparking a vibrant conversation about sex and censorship. But the memo, and Google's reaction to it, also provided an opening for a discussion too seldom had even by the staunchest advocates of free expression.

The culture of political correctness doesn't only censor people's beliefs, it attacks the very process by which we arrive at them.

Nick Gillespie explored how the controversy surrounding the Google memo illustrates this in Reason. "Political correctness has in many ways stymied any sort of good-faith conversation about issues touching on race, class, gender, and other highly charged topics," he observed.

Gillespie, writing from the libertarian perspective, contrasted the arrogance of the philosophy behind political correctness with the "epistemological humility" of libertarianism. "Libertarianism is ultimately grounded not in anything like knowable, objective, scientific truths, but in epistemological humility built on (per Hayek and other unacknowledged postmodernists) a recognition of the limits of human understanding and that centralization of power leads to bad results."

"That is, because we don't know objective truths," Gillespie continued, "we need to have an open exchange of ideas and innovation that allows us to gain more knowledge and understanding even if we never quite get to truth with a capital T."

Even those who believe their world views are grounded in objective truths should be sympathetic to that argument, recognizing the process by which we develop certainty in our beliefs involves the exchange of differing ideas we must compare to draw conclusions.

Not only do the proponents of political correctness censor those who express what people like me might label objective truths for instance, biological sex differences they also seek to censor anybody who expresses anything that subverts progressive orthodoxy. The result, ironically, is a shutdown of the very process by which many of them probably arrived at their own beliefs in the first place.

"We need to allow as many 'experiments in living' (to use John Stuart Mill's phrase) as possible both out of respect for others' right to choose the life they want and to gain more knowledge of what works and what doesn't," Gillespie wrote, concluding, "Political correctness is not simply an attack a given set of current beliefs, it is an attack on the process by which we become smarter and more humane. That's exactly why it's so pernicious and destructive."

There's an ascendant reflex to shout down ideas simply on the basis of their perceived wrongness. Inaccuracy, objective or subjective, is tolerated less and less in the public square.

With the obvious exception of journalists reporting on the news, it's okay for people to express ideas that are wrong, objectively or otherwise. I suspect some of this attitude stems from outrage culture on social media, where people on every point of the ideological spectrum race to belittle other worldviews. To the contrary, we need to respect the value of listening to falsehoods and bad ideas. You can't actually debunk them without knowing they exist in the first place.

Google employees should recognize that it's okay to work with a person you believe is wrong. The memo in question was explicitly respectful and appreciative of diversity. Rather than advocating for the firing of its author, why not take a deep breath, recognize the good intentions, look past your reflexive disagreement, and accept it as an opportunity to prove the correctness of your own views?

After all, one day you might just get something wrong too.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Political correctness attacks the entire learning process - Washington Examiner

Libertarian Republicans seek Rand Paul reinforcements – Washington Examiner

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

Austin Petersen is trying to pull off a difficult task: doubling the number of libertarian-leaning Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was re-elected just last year with 57.3 percent of the vote in a mostly quiet election cycle for Republicans inspired by his father's two GOP presidential campaigns. He is so far the only one to make it into the upper chamber.

"Libertarians have a messaging problem, not an ideas problem," said Petersen, 36. Ambitious and energetic, he is running for Senate in Missouri, a state President Trump carried by nearly 19 points in November, hoping to win the Republican nomination to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey, 29, is running on a similar platform to become the Republican challenger to Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. "He's much less of a Bernie Sanders independent and much more of a Hillary Clinton corporatist type who hands out favors to big-government cronies," Brakey said of his would-be opponent.

"Angus King has been around in politics in the state for as long as I've been alive," said Brakey. "There's a big opportunity here in the state of Maine for us to pick up this U.S. Senate seat."

Both Petersen and Brakey plan to run to the right of the Democrats on fiscal issues while expanding the Republican coalition by hitting their opponents on criminal justice reform and corporate welfare.

"Conservatism runs deep in both parties here," said Petersen. "Even the Democrats in Missouri are very strongly traditional on issues like abortion and gun rights." Yet he believes he could do better appealing to African-American voters in places like St. Louis County, where criminal justice issues boiled over in Ferguson, than more conventional Republicans. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., squeaked through to another term by three points last year even as Trump was winning the state handily.

"I see this in my own state senate races," said Brakey. "A constitutionalist, libertarian message can appeal to the very strong conservative base of the Republican Party while also appealing to independents and even socially liberal voters."

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, is the most established figure who is popular with the libertarian wing of the party who will try his hand at a statewide race next year. Labrador, a Freedom Caucus member, announced in May that he is running for governor. "Idaho needs a proven conservative leader who will stand against the special interests and politicians that have picked the winners and losers in our state Capitol for too long," he said in a statement.

Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul served 12 terms in the House as a Republican, most of them in obscurity, before becoming a national political figure with his 2008 presidential bid. He ran a second time in 2012, nearly doubling his raw primary vote total to more than 2 million and finishing in the top three in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

That was good enough to get other like-minded candidates to run as Republicans on platforms that included opposing the Iraq war, ending the Federal Reserve and making deep cuts to federal spending. Paul's son Rand was first elected to the Senate in the Tea Party wave of 2010. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., won his House seat that same year. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., joined them in 2012.

Since those quick early victories, the momentum has stalled. The elder Paul retired from Congress. His son was believed to have a legitimate chance of capturing the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, but saw Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and even the populist upstart Trump steal some of his base. The younger Paul dropped out after a disappointing finish in Iowa, a state where his father's supporters briefly captured the party leadership and won him a majority of the unbound delegates four years earlier.

Petersen has picked an easy general election target in McCaskill, who is widely considered to be one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2018. "You could beat her just by calling her Obama's senator or Hillary's senator," said Jeff Roe, a Missouri-based Republican strategist. When one pollster tested several potential GOP candidates against McCaskill, Roe said, "Everyone beat her."

But you can't make it to the general without winning the primary first, which will be no easy feat. Republican insiders consider Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, who opened an exploratory committee earlier this month, the overwhelming favorite. The national party and conservative outside groups are prepared to devote considerable resources to supporting Hawley.

If anyone is able to put a roadblock in the way of Hawley's nomination, Republicans familiar with the race expect it will be Missouri Treasurer Eric Schmitt, who garnered national interest himself. Petersen may not even have the libertarian wing all to himself as state Rep. Paul Curtman, a 2012 Ron Paul endorser, launched an exploratory committee in July.

Petersen sought the Libertarian Party presidential nomination last year, winning praise for his strong stand against abortion from conservatives seeking an alternative to Trump. The eventual nominee, Gary Johnson, and his running mate, William Weld, both former Republican governors, supported abortion rights.

King is at present heavily favored for re-election in Maine. There has been persistent speculation about whether Gov. Paul LePage will enter the race on the Republican side.

"The Rand Pauls of the world, when they come along, great," said Cliff Maloney, president of Young Americans for Liberty. "But we need to start building a bench at the local level."

The focus on national races has obscured some libertarian Republican successes in local contests, Maloney said, such as the mayor's offices in Aberdeen, Md., and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. "There's a big difference in perception between running as local schmuck versus local mayor," he added. "It's really about having credibility."

"Everyone starts as a guy in the community," said Brakey. "But it's a lot easier to run for mayor, or run for state senator and try to prove yourself before you run for Congress. People take you a lot more seriously."

The libertarian message for government may apply to politics too. "It's better," he said, "to start small."

Libertarian Republicans seek Rand Paul reinforcements - Washington Examiner

Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties – WBIW.com

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

WBIWNewslocal

Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties

Updated August 11, 2017 5:27 AM|Filed under: Politics

(UNDATED) - The Libertarian Party of Indiana announces the installment of new leaders in several counties across the state. This continues the pattern of growth for the LPIN, even in an off-cycle year for elections.

LPIN State Chair Tim Maguire stated that the Party has installed new County Chairs in Jackson, Knox and Hendricks counties. Those roles have been filled by Erin Meadors, Micah Haynes and Eric Knipe respectively.

"We're continuing to experience a surge in activity all around the state," said Maguire. "After the 2016 election, we never saw new interest in the Libertarian Party dwindle. Through that desire for liberty from our citizens, we have been able to identify the excitement found in these new leaders. They are just a small portion of the former Republicans and Democrats that have realized that the old parties don't represent us anymore."

Micah Haynes, the new chair of the Knox County LP, can be reached via email at micahcoyhaynes@gmail.com or by phone at tel: (469) 600-1821. The Knox County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/KnoxCountyLP.

Eric Knipe, the new chair of the Hendricks County LP, can be reached via email at eric@ericknipe.com or by phone at tel: (317) 456-2297. The Hendricks County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/hendrickslp.

Erin Meadors, the new chair of the Jackson County LP, can be reached via email at erinmpyle@gmail.com or by phone at tel: (812) 271-1500. The Jackson County LP can be found on Facebook at http://facebook.com/groups/165783433853863.

The first half of 2017 saw the expansion of Libertarian leadership in Carroll, Morgan, Montgomery and Jasper Counties.

Maguire went on to say that, "the Libertarian Party of Indiana is always looking for people interested in helping spread liberty by taking leadership roles in their community. I encourage anyone looking for a way to participate to reach out to me. We are excited about the possibility of working together with you."

Have a question or comment about a news story? Send it to comments@wbiw.com

Here is the original post:

Libertarian Party Of Indiana Expands Leadership To Several More Counties - WBIW.com

Silicon Valley’s Libertarian Paradise Lost – American Spectator

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

Beware. Big PC Bro is watching.

Not since Jerry Maguire circulated his mission statement at Sports Management International has an internal memo so backfired on its author as James Damores written thoughts on the tech worlds groupthink did.

The Google engineer wrote that when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Googles left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.

Google quickly terminated Damore (Maybe Brendon Eich is hiring).

Point proved. But at what cost?

More chilling than the actions of the executives are the opinions of the employees. Just a slight majority of Googles employees disagreed with the company axing the engineer for reasons unrelated to his job. A minority of Apple, Lyft, and LinkedIn workers disagreed with Googles actions. Silicon Valleys libertarian paradise lost more closely resembles the college campuses from where its credentialed inhabitants came. Company men (and company women here and there) toil in the massive Northern California company town.

Googles Ideological Echo Chamber, the controversial 3,000+ word firing offense, argued that we should not reflexively attribute differences in gender representation in the workplace to discrimination. Men and women exhibit different traits. Perhaps nature draws males to such fields and women to other fields.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, Damore writes, but discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for womens representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

Damore explains that a 12-hour flight back to the United States from a diversity seminar in China catalyzed the memo. Apparently, the sensitivity training did not affect him as intended.

And thats the rub with diversity, tolerance, sensitivity, and other progressive shibboleths. Proselytizing occasionally unleashes the opposite of the intended effect. And the people committed to those principles often violate them in pursuit of them (hence James Damore standing in the unemployment line).

Some people miss their own irony. They silence in the name of tolerance, discriminate in the name of fighting discrimination, and react to microaggressions with macroaggressions. The glorious ends justify the ignoble means. Unfortunately, the ends never come. We get the mean means over and over again.

Google grew into a $200 billion behemoth befitting of its name because its founders cultivated it in the United States, the most fertile ground for freedom of speech. Its popularity springs not from it excluding controversial topics from its search engine but because it exists as an index of everything. If the government adopted the intolerant principles of Google, then Google would not exist. Google welcomes pornographers, skinheads, libelers, and other loathsome types in its cyberspace. Google cannot endure James Damore working for it. Hmmm.

Web surfers thankfully possess the power to look up any topic through Google. They also retain the power to search through Bing, Yahoo, and even AskJeeves (though he now goes by another web moniker). Why signal to such a large portion of humanity that they welcome their page visits to Google but forbid their views in the Googleplex?

Big Google, like Big Government, senses that it is too big to fail, too big to fall, and too big to boycott. Maybe the companys executives are right. But that doesnt make them right to do wrong even when, as a private entity, they possess the right to commit such a wrong.

Leon Trotsky, an idea man behind the Russian Revolution, reflected on the total states intolerance after falling afoul of the one he helped create.

In a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation, Trotsky, who felt the ice pick as sure as Robespierre felt the guillotine, famously observed. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

China protests US ship sailing by island in South China Sea – ABC News

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction" with the U.S. over the Navy's latest freedom of navigation operation in which a warship sailed past one of China's man-made islands in the strategic South China Sea.

A leading U.S. think tank, meanwhile, released a new report documenting what it said was continuing reclamation work on Chinese-controlled islands in the area despite a recent claim by China's foreign minister that such work had stopped two years ago.

In a statement late Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang called the U.S. Navy's action a "provocation" that "severely undermines China's sovereignty and security, and severely endangers the safety of frontline personnel of both sides."

China, which claims virtually the entire South China Sea, routinely protests such operations, which President Donald Trump's administration has continued partly to reassure allies locked in territorial disputes with Beijing.

"China has the firm determination to safeguard its territorial sovereignty and maritime interests," Geng said. The U.S. move will "compel China to take measures to further raise its capacity to defend national territory," he said.

A U.S. Navy official told The Associated Press that the destroyer USS John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef on Thursday. U.S. officials say the military will continue to sail, fly and operate wherever permitted by international law.

Geng said the Chinese navy "identified the U.S. warship, warned and expelled it."

China and the U.S. maintain different interpretations on international law as applied to the operation of warships, and Beijing has ignored a Hague arbitration court's ruling that invalidated much of its South China Sea claim.

Although the Philippines has taken steps to improve ties with China under its current leader, Rodrigo Duterte, presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said Friday "we don't find (the sail-by) objectionable."

Tensions in the region escalated after China began to turn seven reefs in the Spratly group, including Mischief, which is also claimed by U.S. defense treaty ally the Philippines, into islands, including three with runways.

Missile systems and other defense infrastructure are believed to have also been installed on the islands, which the U.S. and China's neighbors fear could be used to project Chinese power into the area and potentially obstruct freedom of navigation.

Firing back at criticism of China's activities, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Monday that China had "stopped or already completed land reclamation" on its holdings in the South China Sea two years ago.

However, the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said China was continuing to reclaim land in the Paracel Islands to the north of the Spratlys.

Wang's claim "is false" and China's reclamation work "did not end in mid-2015 with the completion of its artificial islands in the Spratlys," said the report.

The Paracels play "a key role in China's goal of establishing surveillance and power projection capabilities throughout the South China Sea," the report said. "To this end, Beijing has undertaken substantial upgrades of its military infrastructure in the Paracels."

China occupies 20 outposts in the chain and improvements include the addition of harbors, helipads, an airstrip, hangars and a surface-to-air missile battery, the report said.

Earlier in the week, Wang said talks on a nonaggression pact aimed at preventing clashes from erupting in the South China Sea may start this year if "outside parties" don't cause a major disruption, in an apparent reference to Washington and allies such as Japan.

The U.S. is not a party to the disputes in the busy and potentially oil- and gas-rich waters that also involve Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. Washington, however, has declared it in its interest to ensure that the conflicts are resolved peacefully and that freedom of navigation and overflight remain unhampered. An estimated $5 trillion in annual trade passes through the waterway.

Washington's critical actions came as it courts the help of China, North Korea's most important economic partner, in taming Pyongyang's nuclear weapons ambitions and ending its missile tests.

Associated Press writer Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:

China protests US ship sailing by island in South China Sea - ABC News

Exclusive: Cayman Islands Pursuing First All-Inclusive Resort – Travel Agent

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

Rosa Harris, director of tourism for theCayman Islands,tells Travel Agent that could soon change.

We sat down with Harris on Wednesday afternoonand learned that the destinationis actively looking for an all-inclusive resort company to open up shop in the destination.

As a destination, Cayman would like to see our first fully-dedicated,all-inclusive resort that would hopefully round out the offerings that Cayman has, Harris told Travel Agent.

Although Harris told us the ultimate plan would be to have an all-inclusive resort on the destinations lesser-know Cayman Brac, she also said she would like to see oneon the more mainstream island of Grand Cayman.

Travel Agent is excited to soon see all-inclusive resorts in two Caribbean islands, the Cayman Islands and Puerto Rico, for the first time.

After years of rumors that AMResorts was looking to expand to Puerto Rico and become the destinations only all-inclusive resort, the company inked a deal late last year to build a Dreams Resort in Guanica,Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico and Cayman Islands are bothrestaurant-heavy islands that rely on off-property dining options to help drive the economy. This was perhaps the main reason both islands have been reluctant over the years to welcome an all-inclusive property.

We are going to be very careful in deciding what all-inclusive company comes to the destination, says Harris. We need to make sure guests of whatever all-inclusive it is are still encouraged to get off the resort and eat at our local restaurants.

As far as what company makes sense for the destination, Travel Agent thinks its a very likely possibility that Karisma Hotels &Resorts could be the first all-inclusive company to open a hotel in the Cayman Islands.

After all, Karisma and the Cayman Islands already have a mutual business partner in Margaritaville Holdings, LLC. Margaritaville Beach Resort Grand Cayman, the anticipated multi-million-dollar renovation project situated in the heart of Grand Caymanon Seven Mile Beach, had a soft opening back in February. That same month, Karisma signed a partnership to develop a new all-inclusive Margaritaville Resorts brand.

But Harris wouldnt confirm or deny whether Karisma is one of the companies the Cayman Islands is eyeing.

We have several names in mind already, but well share those at another time, Harris told Travel Agent.

Visit http://www.caymanislands.kyand keep visitingwww.travelagentcentral.comfor all your latest travel news. Be sure to followTravel AgentsJoe PikeonTwitter[emailprotected]andInstagram@pike5260.

Cayman Islands No Longer on Zika Travel Advisory List

Five Questions With Rosa Harris, the Cayman Islands' Director of Tourism

On Location: How to Sell Grand Cayman to Millennial Travelers

Margaritaville Beach Resort Grand Cayman Opens for Reservations

Link:

Exclusive: Cayman Islands Pursuing First All-Inclusive Resort - Travel Agent

North Korea Aside, Guam Faces Another Threat: Climate Change – New York Times

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

The Pentagon said in a 2014 report that climate change posed an immediate threat to national security. And in June, the House Armed Services Committee passed an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act that would require the secretary of defense to submit a report on how climate change could affect American military installations and combat requirements over the next 20 years.

There are a number of climate adaptation studies underway in Guam, both civilian and military, said Victoria Keener, a research fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu who works on applied hydrology and climatology projects in the Pacific islands.

The adaptation work includes research, overseen by a local climate change task force, on coastal infrastructure in tourist areas, Dr. Keener said, as well as a Pentagon-financed study to explore how climate change may affect the islands freshwater resources.

Dr. Keener said that, because Guam is not particularly low-lying, it probably would be less vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels than an island such as Kwajalein Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, where the defense contractor Lockheed Martin is building a $915 million radar system for the United States Air Force.

But Guams topography is no guarantee that its climate adaptation projects would be effective over the long term, she added.

Climate change adaptation: Its a new field, she said, and you really dont know how well youre preparing for things until 20 years, 30 years down the road.

Here is the original post:

North Korea Aside, Guam Faces Another Threat: Climate Change - New York Times

Future Islands Dominated At FMQB’s Triple A Conference – 303 Magazine

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

Friday Morning Quarter Backs (FMQB) Triple A Conference commenced Wednesday, August 9 with a stellar lineup featuring Future Islands, The Lone Bellow and Mondo Cozmo at the Fox Theatre and Bahamas and Current Swell on a free adjacent outdoor stage. The Triple A Conference, now in its eighth year in Boulder, is a platform for radio decision makers to decide which bands will be featured in this years playlists. Despite the big heads in the room, the first night of the Triple A Conference was a stunning display of some of the brightest powerhouses in alternative music.

Photo Courtesy of Current Swells Facebook Page

Starting the night off with Current Swell on the outdoor stage provided some quintessential Boulder moments. The Canadian blues-folk band strummed iridescent feel-good tunes against a dusky haze, as the consumption-conscious residents melded together with the burgeoning college-age crowd and a homeless man put two tree branches to use thrashing and spinning on the outskirts of the crowd. No one batted an eye. Its easy to see where the man got his inspiration from.Current Swells vivacious display was a charismatic one more akin to watching a friend put on a performance in his living room than a band on stage performing in front of a few hundred people.However, the effect was irresistible and set the tone for the rest of the night.

Following Current Swells homegrown stylings was Bahamas. Afie Jurvanen, formally known as Bahamas, sent spine-tingling melodies across Boulders hill with over-meticulous guitar plucks and syncopated rhythms. There was not a foot untapped and a head kept still as hed volley vocals back and forth with backup singer Felicity Williams while occasionally breaking into intricate guitar work. Though Bahamas audibly fits into the indie-folk category, the bands many musical inflections and live improvisations seemed to break them from common tropes of folk music into something quite inspiring.In fact, the longer Bahamas went on, the less a specific genre could be pinned on them. One thing is for certain though, Bahamas surpassed many expectations, managing to make indie-folk sound fresh in the process.

Photo By Brent Andeck

The night soon shifted to the Fox Theatre for The Lone Bellows performance. After a momentary delay, The Lone Bellows proved themselves to be the real deal. For one thing, the core of the group, Zach Williams, Kanene Pipkin and Brian Elmquist all have earth-shattering pipes that can all stand on their own, but when they come together they make something truly wondrous. On songs like You Never Need Nobody, the band resembled a full-bodied choir and on the Elmquist-led track Watch Over Us, the band demonstrated blistering reserve, waxing and waning in response to Elmquists vulnerability, supporting when necessary and retreating accordingly.The anthems were as potent as the slow burners in pushing the audience across a continuum of emotions. The pure passion of the band overflowed from the group like the sweat from Williams wavy mane, making it impossible to not get caught up in the moment whether you were well-acquainted with the band or not.When the band concluded the show, the audience was right there with them taking the first full breath after a truly exhilarating ride.

When the nights closer Future Islands eventually took the stage, a tangible excitement pervaded the room. As one of Will Cashions signature bass line entered the fray, the Fox Theatre devolved into an all-out dance party. The bands latest effort, The Far Field offered a darker visage of the band, a step back from the optimism and nave excitement of love that were motifs of prior releases, but fittingly so in natural progression of the band.However, even at their bleakest moments, Future Islands doubled down on the cathartic nature of their performance, encouraging dancing through the joy and pain all the same.And thats what we did.

Photo by Camille Breslin

In a career spanning setlist, Future Islands captured the ephemera of their fleeting moment on stage. They had the crowd wilding out to older cuts Walking Through The Door, and Tin Man while holding steady in the grip of newer, more somber cuts Through the Roses and Ancient Water. All the while, lead singer Samuel Herring battled his way through the setlist like a man possessed, swinging his arms, spinning around and kicking his legs out with manic intensity in characteristic fashion. There wasnt a moment wasted standing still, even as small stage banter would ensue, as those in the audience twitched with energy, waiting for the next hit.The virile performance was infectious, spreading from the front of the house to the rear as if each heavy hitting song demanded submission to their propulsive beats.The unrelentingly brazen nature of Future Islands performance from the start through the encore made them a clear standout in a night of already fantastic performances. With the start of the Triple A Conference featuring so much grit, its a wonder if anyone will be able to contend with the two remaining days.

303 Magazine303 MusicAfie JurvanenbahamasBoulderBrent AndeckBrian ElmquistCamille Breslincanadiancurrent swellFelicity WilliamsFMQBfox theatreFuture IslandsKanene PipkinKori HazelMondo CozmoSamuel HerringThe Far FieldThe Lone BellowTriple A ConferenceWill CashionZ2 EntertainmentZach Williams

Future Islands Dominated At FMQB's Triple A Conference - 303 Magazine

Americans want a say in human genome editing, survey shows – Los Angeles Times

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

When it comes to CRISPR, our society has some important decisions to make.

Just last week, scientists reported a new first in the journal Nature: They edited heritable cells in human embryos to treat an inherited form of heart disease. The day after the research was published, a group of genetics experts published a statement calling for further debate before applications of the technology are taken any further in humans.

According to a new survey of 1,600 adults published in the journal Science today, much of the American public shares this desire for engagement in decision-making. Led by Dietram Scheufele, a professor of science communication at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, the study found that while support for gene editing applications varies, a majority of respondents think the public should be consulted before genome editing is used in humans.

Gene editing presents the potential for remarkable benefits.

The potential to cure genetic disease and to ensure the safety of the world's food supply in the face of climate change are perhaps the most exciting opportunities, said Jennifer Doudna, a chemist at UC Berkeley who was an early pioneer of the powerful gene-editing technique CRISPR-Cas9 and was not involved in the new study.

But it also raises some serious ethical questions, especially when we turn our attention to tweaking the human genome, Scheufele said. Many people find some applications like disease treatment valuable, and others like making your children more intelligent morally shaky.

For example, scientists may eventually develop a cure for what some people dont consider an illness like a disability, Scheufele said. Would those who chose not to undergo genetic therapy or who couldnt afford it then be discriminated against even more as a result?

These and other ethical concerns go beyond the bounds of science, Scheufele says, and his poll results show that the public wants to be involved in the debate.

Oregon Health & Science University

Embryos develop into blastocysts after co-injection, which could someday be used in fertility clinics to help people trying to have children free of genetic disease.

Embryos develop into blastocysts after co-injection, which could someday be used in fertility clinics to help people trying to have children free of genetic disease. (Oregon Health & Science University)

Because of the fast-moving progress of gene editing research and the vast potential for both beneficial applications and negative consequences, many experts have called for public engagement on the issue including in a consensus report released this year by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).

The new study strove to answer some questions emerging from the National Academies report. First, how do people feel about different applications of gene editing? And secondly, do Americans agree that the public should be consulted on gene editing applications? Similar questions had been asked in previous polls, but the authors wanted to get some more specific data.

Human genome editing can be used for two broad purposes: therapy or enhancement. Therapeutic applications include the treatment of genetic disorders like muscular dystrophy or sickle cell disease, while enhancement might be used to change your daughters eye color or make her grow taller.

Each of these changes can be heritable or not, depending on which type of cell is tweaked. Somatic cells are nonreproductive, so any changes to these cells will not be passed on to future generations. Germline cells, on the other hand, are heritable therefore, any modifications will be inherited by the treated persons children and grandchildren.

Reprinted with permission from D.A. Scheufele et al., Science 357:6351 2017

A graphic from the paper showing the acceptance of gene editing by application.

A graphic from the paper showing the acceptance of gene editing by application. (Reprinted with permission from D.A. Scheufele et al., Science 357:6351 2017)

The new poll shows that two-thirds of Americans support therapeutic applications, whether to somatic (64% support) or germline (65% support) cells. When it comes to enhancement, however, there is much less approval. Only 39% of respondents find somatic enhancement acceptable, with 35% saying it is unacceptable. Levels of support dropped even lower for heritable germline enhancement, to 26% in acceptance and 51% in opposition.

When these results were broken down by how religious respondents were, some variation emerged. Religious people are less supportive of genome editing overall. Only half of them expressed some support of treatment applications, compared with 75% of nonreligious respondents. When it comes to enhancement, 28% of religious respondents and 45% of nonreligious people reported some level of support.

The authors also ranked respondents in terms of low, medium and high knowledge by their score on a nine-question factual quiz. Those in the high-knowledge category were far more supportive of treatment applications, with 76% in support compared with only 32% of low-knowledge respondents.

When asked about enhancement applications, the high-knowledge group was very polarized, with 41% in support and a nearly equal amount in opposition. In contrast, half of low-knowledge people reported that they neither support nor oppose gene editing.

Robert Blendon, who studies health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, said that the polarization could be there for a reason. Those who know more about the technology have probably learned about it because they have a vested interest maybe a genetic disease runs in their family or they are concerned with ethical consequences.

Reprinted with permission from D.A. Scheufele et al., Science 357:6351 2017

A graphic from the paper showing the opinions of respondents based on religiosity and knowledge.

A graphic from the paper showing the opinions of respondents based on religiosity and knowledge. (Reprinted with permission from D.A. Scheufele et al., Science 357:6351 2017)

The more religious people were, the less likely they were to trust the scientific community to responsibly develop new technologies. This trend was opposite when it came to knowledge: The more knowledgeable people were about the technology, the more likely they were to trust the scientists.

While the two groups may have very different reasons, both highly religious and highly knowledgeable people agreed that the public should be involved in decision-making before gene editing is used in humans.

Blendon said that while its clear the public wants a say in how gene editing is used, its unclear exactly what public engagement looks like. The first way most people might think of being consulted is through their elected officials, but other surveys suggest that the public actually doesnt think the government should be making decisions about genome technology.

Scheufele said that there is currently no infrastructure in place for crucial two-way communication between scientists and the public on the genome editing issue but its important to develop it.

Diverse groups and perspectives have an important role to play in shaping the early stages of human genome editing research, Scheufele said. Scientists may not think to investigate all the questions that the public may deem vital.

If we ask the wrong questions, he said, then we may have perfect technical answers to all the wrong questions.

mira.abed@latimes.com

@mirakatherine

Originally posted here:

Americans want a say in human genome editing, survey shows - Los Angeles Times

This health care study might be a silver bullet for Democrats in 2018 – CNN

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

Of the 20 states -- and DC -- where preliminary 2018 premiums and insurer participation are available, premiums will rise in every location but one, according to the Kaiser analysis. The lone exception is in Rhode Island where premiums in Providence are expected to dip by 5% as compared to 2017. The premium increases range from 3% in Detroit, Michigan to 49% in Wilmington, Delaware. Fifteen of the locations are projected to see a premium increase of double digit percentages.

Those rate increases are, according to the Kaiser study, the direct result of the uncertainty around the law and its future. Here's the key bit from Kaiser on that:

"In the 20 states and DC with detailed rate filings included in the previous sections of this analysis, the vast majority of insurers cite policy uncertainty in their rate filings. Some insurers make an explicit assumption about the individual mandate not being enforced or cost-sharing subsidies not being paid and specify how much each assumption contributes to the overall rate increase. Other insurers state that if they do not get clarity by the time rates must be finalized -- which is August 16 for the federal marketplace -- they may either increase their premiums further or withdraw from the market."

It doesn't -- or shouldn't -- take a political genius to see how those numbers could translate into a political context. Close your eyes and imagine seeing this ad:

[images of sick, sad looking patients on screen]

Narrator: "Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are gutting our health care. Premiums are spiking. And Trump? 'Let Obamacare fail...I'm not going to own it."

Add in a little localized factoid -- "in Pennsylvania, premiums are surging by 25%" -- and you have the makings of a devastatingly effective ad.

And, unlike, say the Russia investigation, which remains difficult to weaponize in a political context because of its abstractness and complexity, health care is a tremendously potent issue in a campaign.

It touches everyone on a daily, weekly or, at a minimum, monthly basis. It is not some pie-in-the-sky idea. It is a real-life struggle and challenge. It impacts lives. Those are the sorts of issues that really matter in politics -- ones that speak to the heart more than the head.

We've seen proof of health care's power as an issue in both the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections. In 2010, conservative outrage at what they viewed as major overreach by the federal government into their health care fueled the Republican takeover of the House. In 2014, the broken promise of "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan" led to the Republican takeover of the Senate.

This Kaiser study is the sort of thing that you will see in lots and lots of Democratic ads over the next 15 months. And it's a line of attack Republicans -- at least to this point -- have no obvious answer to.

Excerpt from:

This health care study might be a silver bullet for Democrats in 2018 - CNN

House conservatives want fresh health care repeal vote – ABC News

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

Hard-line conservatives began an uphill fight Friday to force a fresh House vote this fall on erasing much of President Barack Obama's health care law without an immediate replacement, the latest instance of Republican rifts in what's been a fractious week for the GOP.

The effort by the House Freedom Caucus seemed to have no chance of passing Congress. The GOP-led Senate turned down a similar repeal-only bill last month, and top House Republicans have little interest in refighting a health care battle they were relieved to put aside after their chamber approved legislation in May.

With the party's repeal effort collapsing last month in the Senate, the conservatives' push gives them a fresh chance to show hard-right voters they've not surrendered. It also provides a chance to call attention to Republican lawmakers who've pledged to tear down Obama's law but haven't voted to do so with Donald Trump in the White House.

"It's not about calling out anyone, it's about doing what we said," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a Freedom Caucus leader. "And I do think people deserve to see if their member of Congress is going to do what they campaigned on."

The conservatives filed a petition Friday calling for a House vote on dismantling Obama's law that would not take effect until January 2019. They say that would give Congress time to enact a replacement and pressure Democrats to cooperate, a premise Democrats who oppose the repeal effort reject.

To force a House vote, conservatives need signatures of 218 lawmakers, a majority. That seems like an uphill task because many GOP moderates oppose annulling Obama's law without a replacement they'd support, and all Democrats are opposed.

Asked how Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., views the conservatives' push, spokeswoman AshLee Strong said, "The House has already passed a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare."

This week has also featured an extraordinary verbal barrage by Trump against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., over the Senate crash of the health care drive.

After tweeting caustic criticisms of McConnell, Trump insinuated to reporters that McConnell should consider resigning if he can't push health care, tax and infrastructure legislation through his chamber. McConnell had said Trump had "excessive expectations" about how quickly Congress could pass complicated bills.

At raucous town halls, Republicans have faced another round of anger over health care – Washington Post

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

BRUNSWICK, Ga. The long August congressional recess, which Republicans hoped would begin a conversation about tax reform and must-pass budget measures, has so far seen another round of angry town halls focused on President Trump and the stalled effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Over just one day, in three small towns along Georgias Atlantic coastline, Rep. Earl L. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) spent more than four hours answering 74 questions, many of them heated. Just three focused on tax reform; nearly half of all questions focused on health care.

We did our job in the House, Carter said at the top of a town hall at Brunswicks College of Coastal Georgia. It got over to the Senate, and it hit a stumbling block there. Now its in their court, and they need to get something done. Folks, were not giving up.

Carters town halls he is hosting nine total, more than any member of the House mirrored what was happening in swing and safe Republican districts across the country. The failure of the repeal bill kick-started a tax reform campaign, backed by Republican leaders and pro-business groups, who have booked millions of dollars in TV ads to promote whatever might lead to an uncomplicated tax code.

In the first spots, paid for by the American Action Network, a laid-off steelworker worries that without lower taxes for working families, more jobs will be lost to China. At rallies and forums in several states, Americans for Prosperity has pitched tax reform as a way to unrig the economy. And in a polling memo made public this week, the AAN found 65 to 73 percent of voters responding favorably to reform if it was pitched as a way to restore the earning power of the middle class and save billions of dollars per in year on tax preparation services.

But at town-hall meetings since the start of the recess, tax reform has hardly come up; health care has dominated. At a Monday town hall in Flat Rock, N.C., Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) pitched a plan to devolve ACA programs to the states, then found himself fending off constituents who backed universal Medicare.

[Bipartisan health policy coalition urges Congress to strengthen the ACA]

You can take the top one percent and tax them fully, and it still wont pay for Medicare, said Meadows.

At a town hall in Chico, Calif., in the most Democratic portion of a deep red district, Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) found himself fending off furious complaints about the repeal vote, with constituents accusing him of acting to bring about their death.

I hope you suffer the same painful fate as those millions that you have voted to remove health care from, one constituent told LaMalfa. May you die in pain.

Carters town halls did not reach that boiling point, but they revealed what the tone of congressional listening sessions has become angry, wistful and loaded with progressive activists.

The 1st congressional District, stretching from Savannah to the Florida border, has been held by his party since 1993. In 2016, the Trump-Pence ticket carried the district by 15.5 points, while Democrats could not find a candidate to run against Carter.

(Nolan Ford/North State Public Radio)

But on Tuesday, the constituents who signed up for the meetings on Eventbrite and walked past local police officers to take their seats seemed to skew left. Two groups founded after the 2016 election, Speak Up Now and Savannah Taking Action for Resistance, had members at town halls in Darien and Brunswick.

Carter, who peppered his answers with self-deprecating jokes, sometimes called on activists whod dogged him before. In Brunswick, he quickly pivoted from a question about Zionist influence in our foreign policy by promising to put America first. After three different constituents asked him to say whether he supported the presidents decision to ban transgender men and women from military service, he went from deferring to our commander in chief to saying what he believed.

I dont want em serving in the military, Carter said, as dozens of constituents booed and more than a dozen walked out. Im sorry.

At each town hall, Carter provided fact sheets to advance two messages one about how much work Congress had done in 2017, and one about how his party would not give up on repealing the ACA. A one-pager titled Health Care Reform: Myth vs. Fact, with citations from the Department of Health and Human Services, revealed just how much the party had suffered from Democratic attacks. Instead of rebutting the line that the AHCA would cut Medicaid, it framed the ACAs Medicaid expansion as a departure from the programs mission that denied choice to the working poor.

Medicaid was designed to provide a vital health care safety net for elderly, children, pregnant women, and individuals with disabilities, it read. Low and middle-income adults capable of holding down a job should have health care choices.

Behind the microphone, Carter found himself making that same point repeatedly, about a slew of ideas for expanded government programs, as Democrats cheered and Republicans simmered. In Brunswick, after Carter told a college student that free tuition was a pipe dream weve got a $20 trillion debt an older man took the mic and advised the student to get a job.

It wasnt the only time Carter stood back and watched as his constituents argued among themselves. Mary Nelson, 73, used her question time at Carters Darien town hall to insist that Republicans were all wrong about single-payer health care. She walked through an experience that her Australian relatives had gone through, and described a cheap system with no hoops to jump through that could be copied in America.

They are taxed out the wazoo in Australia, interjected Adrienne Stidhams, 48, a Trump supporter.

How much do we pay for premiums? Nelson asked rhetorically.

Like Meadows, Carter suggested that Democrats and Republicans could work together on health-care bills while the repeal effort stalled. When multiple constituents asked if he would let the probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election play out, Carter defended the president and suggested that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, a good man, would likely find out the facts before long.

Im worried about some of the people he has around him, Carter said, apparently referring to lawyers hired for the probe who have been attacked in conservative media for donating to Democrats.

There were no questions about the debt limit, which must be raised when Congress returns to avoid default. The three questions about tax reform focused on the possibility of the Fair Tax, a national sales tax to replace taxes on income, about whether companies keeping profits overseas could be taxed, and about tax fairness in general.

Carter jumped at the opportunity to talk about it. Whats being proposed right now is to bring our corporate tax down from 35 percent one of the highest in the world down to 15 percent, he said, citing a tax reform blueprint released this spring and a positive analysis from the conservative Tax Foundation. That will create jobs.

No constituents followed up with questions. Instead, there was more skepticism about the president and his plans, countered by constituents who asked Carter to defend the president from media attacks.

I tell ya, I dont think Ive ever seen a president thats been disrespected by the media like this, said Carter. He had more to say, but drowned out by booing, he moved on.

Podcast: Black churches take on the fight against racial disparities in health care – USA TODAY

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

USA TODAY Published 10:36 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2017

Johnny J. Hollis, Jr., pastor of Mercy Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala., talks to classmates, Dorothy McAdory, right, and Darlene Cotton last week after a session on health disparities at the Greater Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Birmingham.(Photo: Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY)

Some black churches in the South have taken a dramatic step: banning fried chicken from their Sunday menus.

It is part of a broad effort to combat the persistent truth that blacks suffer from conditions like heart disease and diabetes at much higher rates than whites.

USA TODAY's Deborah Berry visited an event in a Birmingham, Ala., church last week where the Alabama Baptist State Congress of Christian Education convened a training for community leaders on ways to bring better health care to people in church, in barbershops, and in neighborhood grocery stores. But participantssaid they are concerned that any roll back of the Affordable Care Act could make their jobs harder.

Berry joined us on USA TODAY's Cup of Politics podcast to talk about the effort.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2wPlJ2q

View original post here:

Podcast: Black churches take on the fight against racial disparities in health care - USA TODAY

Congressmen: Our bipartisan plan for health care – CNN

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

We are, too.

We're freshman members of Congress from different political parties, but we know there is more that unites us than divides us. That's why we're part of the Problem Solvers Caucus: a group of more than 40 lawmakers, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, committed to -- you guessed it -- solving problems.

As it stands, the Affordable Care Act is unsustainable. For too many Americans, health care is still too expensive. Premiums are rising and people are scared. This is a life-and-death issue for many Americans. They deserve to know that when they get sick, or their child falls ill, that a system will be in place to ensure they have access to high-quality, affordable health coverage. That should be the goal for any lawmaker, regardless of party.

We know that the Affordable Care Act isn't perfect, but we need to keep what works and fix what doesn't. The bottom line is: we need to stabilize the individual market right now -- and that is what our proposal does.

Second, we must stabilize the individual marketplace by creating a dedicated fund for states to use to bring down premiums and limit losses for providing coverage, especially for people with pre-existing conditions.

Third, our plan calls for an adjustment to the employer mandate from businesses that have 50 employees to those with 500 employees. The current mandate puts too many burdens on small businesses, making it almost impossible to grow beyond 50 employees.

Finally, our proposal will provide technical changes and guidelines for states seeking to improve their exchanges and offer better coverage for consumers.

This isn't the silver bullet solution to our healthcare troubles, but it's a start -- and it's the exact kind of common sense leadership that Americans are looking for. Instead of focusing on scoring political points, the Problem Solvers Caucus' goal is simple: get things done.

We both happen to have been trained as CPAs and lawyers. We're both freshmen members from suburban districts. One is from Long Island and Queens in New York and the other from outside Philadelphia, but we are joined by other members from all over our nation with varying backgrounds and years of service.

When we came to Congress earlier this year, each of us signed a freshman pledge to civility. That's what being an elected official is about. We chose to set aside our petty differences, look at the big picture, and realize that we have a sacred duty to improve the lives of the people who have entrusted us with the responsibility of representing them -- and our country -- in Congress.

We know that this is serious business. Ramming through legislation with support from only one party is not how the legislative branch of government was meant to operate, and as we've seen before and we're seeing again now, it just doesn't work.

We need leaders sobered by their responsibilities and individuals committed to stopping the nonsense that dominates our current national discourse and elevating the debate to the serious, responsible level our times demand.

Instead of focusing on areas of disagreement, let's focus on goodwill and compromise where we can find common ground. We believe our health care proposal is the start of many good bipartisan conversations. It is not only our duty, but our only hope.

See original here:

Congressmen: Our bipartisan plan for health care - CNN

Dems target swing-district House GOP on health care – Minneapolis Star Tribune

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

By THOMAS BEAUMONT , Associated Press August 11, 2017 - 1:30 PM

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa Democrats used a bus emblazoned with the words "Drive for our Lives" to gin up opposition to vulnerable House Republicans who voted against Obamacare with the aim of upending the GOP's majority in next year's midterm elections.

The vote to repeal and replace the Obama health care law looms large for 21 GOP lawmakers, including Iowa Reps. David Young and Rod Blum. They represent competitive congressional districts where Democrat Hillary Clinton won or came close in last year's presidential election.

The collapse of the yearslong Republican quest to dismantle Obamacare has been a bitter pill for House Republicans who voted for the legislation in May only to see the drive fall apart recently in the Senate when the GOP failed to muster enough votes.

Now all that some lawmakers have to show for the politically tough vote is the word "mean" President Donald Trump's description of legislation that would have made deep cuts in Medicaid, allowed states to opt out of coverage for essential benefits and knocked 23 million Americans off insurance.

The bus motored into Iowa on Friday, stopping in Cedar Rapids, the largest city in Blum's eastern Iowa district.

The black-and-gray motor coach was parked in downtown Cedar Rapids as Diane Peterson urged Blum to listen to his district's independent voters, who outnumber those affiliated with either major party.

"Of course there are things in the ACA that need fixing," said Peterson, referring to the Obama health law's name, the Affordable Care Act. The 61-year-old Democrat and coffee shop owner from Hiawatha added, "But Republicans now need to reach out."

While Blum has allied himself with the House's conservative Freedom Caucus, Young angered conservatives when he initially opposed a House GOP health care bill, then weeks later swung behind it. Independents were frustrated with the two-term congressman's embrace of a partisan approach to repealing and replacing Obamacare.

"David Young is not as conservative as some would like here in southwest Iowa," said Council Bluffs Republican David Overholtzer, a 56-year-old accountant.

"Things need to get done," said Jeff Jorgensen, a western Iowa Republican county chairman. "He's doing OK, but his chances for re-election are tied to Trump's popularity."

The Des Moines Register's Iowa poll last month showed Trump's disapproval climbing to 52 percent. The increase was driven largely by independents, 59 percent of whom disapproved of Trump's job performance, compared to 50 percent in February.

Independents, who hold sway in Young's politically diverse district, want a bipartisan approach to health care.

"That's what I and others like me have been saying: Because of this fail, people might reach across the aisle and craft something together," said Mark Scherer, a 65-year-old manufacturing representative and political independent from a north Des Moines suburb.

Now, Young is threading the needle, talking bipartisanship as he faces the reality that Democrats are gunning for him in a state where Trump's approval is sinking and neither can boast a major legislative achievement.

"We've got to pivot for the good of the country to a more bipartisan solution," the 49-year-old Young, a former chief of staff to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, told The Associated Press during a visit to far western Iowa. "It's probably an easier, clearer path."

A national poll released Friday by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that around 4 in 5 want the Trump administration to take actions that help Obama's law function properly, rather than trying to undermine it. Just 3 in 10 want Trump and Republicans to continue their drive to repeal and replace the statute.

Young defended his vote for the House GOP bill, arguing that Republicans added billions of dollars more to help people with preexisting conditions.

Democrat Janet Norris from Red Oak, who met privately with Young in her western Iowa hometown last week, called his reasoning "doublespeak."

"You need to assure me you care about us in the Third District, and not what Republican leadership tells you to do," she recalled telling Young during their private chat at the Red Oak fire station.

Norris doesn't rule out voting next year for Young, who has drawn seven potential Democratic challengers, but cringed and said, "I just don't feel like he's independent enough."

Young's newly expressed, less-partisan view is music to the ears of Republican Christi Taylor, 46, a physician from Waukee in Des Moines' burgeoning western suburbs, heavy with moderate Republicans and independents.

But she lamented Republicans' attempt to quickly pass legislation with support from only GOP lawmakers. "This is not something any one party should ram through," Taylor said, describing the House's effort as "naive and arrogant."

Democrat Bryce Smith from nearby Adel agrees with Young that the 2010 law needs tweaking, not shredding. The 26-year-old bowling alley owner complains that Young's bipartisan tone is convenient, in light of the spectacular collapse of Republican efforts.

"All of a sudden, now that this failed, we need to approach it in a bipartisan way?" Smith said in disbelief. "If it would have passed the first time, we would have never heard from him that we need to work on a bipartisan solution."

See original here:

Dems target swing-district House GOP on health care - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Human Germline Genome Editing Genetics bodies weigh in on debate with position paper – JD Supra (press release)

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

In an article published in American Journal of Human Genetics on 3 August 2017, an international group of 11 organisations with genetics expertise has issued a joint position statement, setting out 3 key positions on the question of human germline genome editing:

(1)At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy.

(2)Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.

(3)Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

This serendipitously timed statement comes on the heels of Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues at Oregon Health and Science Universitys publication of an article in Nature reporting the successful use of CRISPR/Cas9 in human embryos to correct a mutation in a gene called MYBPC3 that causes a potentially fatal heart condition known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The publication of this article has drawn the attention of the wider mainstream media and reignited the public debate as to the desirability, feasibility and ethics of editing the human genome in an inheritable way.

Gene editing - putting the paper in context

Whilst debates about the ethics of gene editing (both somatic and germline) go back decades, human germline genome editing has never before been realistically possible from a technical standpoint. That has changed with the advent of the CRISPR/Cas9 system, whose efficiency and ease of use has not only opened up the field of gene editing to a far larger number of companies and laboratories than previously, but has brought the editing of specific genes in a human embryo out of the realms of fantasy into reality. The potential for such technology to improve quality of life and prevent suffering caused by debilitating genetically inherited diseases has captured the imagination of many, particularly people living with currently intractable genetic conditions, their friends and family. However, the power of the technology has also conjured up the familiar spectres of playing God, the uncertainty of long term effects on individuals (and what it means to be human itself), marginalisation of the disabled or genetically inferior and the potential for inequality to manifest itself genetically as well as socioeconomically.

Germline cell editing poses significantly more concerning ethical and regulatory issues than somatic cell editing. The latter will only result in uninheritable changes to the genome of a population of cells in the particular individual treated, whilst the former involves genetic changes that will be passed down, for better or worse, to the individuals offspring.

In early 2015, the first study demonstrating that CRISPR/Cas9 could be used to modify genes in early-stage human embryos was published. Although the embryos employed for those experiments were not capable of developing to term, the work clearly demonstrated that genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 in human embryos can readily be performed. That report stimulated many scientists and organisations to clarify their stance on the use of genome-editing methods. The United Kingdom and Sweden have both approved experiments for editing DNA of a human embryo but not those that involve implanting embryos. In the UK, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has approved an application by developmental biologist Kathy Niakan, at the Francis Crick Institute in London, to use CRISPR/Cas9 in healthy human embryos. Currently, such experiments cannot be done with federal funding in the United States given a congressional prohibition on using taxpayer funds for research that destroys human embryos. Congress has also banned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from considering a clinical trial of embryo editing. As would be expected, the safety requirements for any human clinical genome-editing application are extremely stringent.

However, earlier this year, US-based National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), published a report that concluded using genome-editing technology, such as CRISPR/Cas9, to make alterations to the germline would be acceptable if the intention was to treat or prevent serious genetic disease or disorders, and the procedure was proven to be safe ( significant and, to an extent, subjective hurdles to be overcome).

The ASHG position paper

The position paper was the product of a working group established by the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), including representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counsellors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counsellors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The group, composed of a combination of research and clinical scientists, bioethicists, health services researchers, lawyers and genetic counsellors, worked together to integrate the scientific status of and socio-ethical views towards human germline genome editing.

As part of this process, the working group reviewed and summarised nine existing policy statements on gene editing and embryo research and interventions from national and international bodies, including The International Society for Stem Cell Research (2015) Statement on Human Germline Genome Modification, The Hinxton Group (2015) Statement on Genome Editing Technologies and the statement released following the International Summit on Human Gene Editing (2015) co-hosted by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (UK). It was observed that differences in these policies include the very definition of what constitutes a human embryo or a reproductive cell, the nature of the policy tool adopted to promote the positions outlined, and the oversight/enforcement mechanisms for the policy. However, by and large, the majority of available statements and recommendations restrict applications from attempting to initiate a pregnancy with an embryo or reproductive cell whose germline has been altered. At the same time, many advocate for the continuation of basic research (and even preclinical research in some cases) in the area. One notable exception is the US National Institutes of Health, which refuses to fund the use of any gene-editing technologies in human embryos. Accordingly, due to the lack of public funding in the US, work such as that done by Mitalipovs group must be privately funded.

The working group considered that ethical issues around germline genome editing largely fall into two broad categories those arising from its potential failure and those arising from its success. Failure exposes individuals to a variety of health consequences, both known and unknown, while success could lead to societal concerns about eugenics, social justice and equal access to medical technologies.

The 11 organisations acknowledged numerous ethical issues arising from human germline genome editing, including:

exposing individuals to potentially harmful health consequences, since the magnitude of the potential risks of off-target or unintended consequences are yet to be determined;

the risk that if highly restrictive policies are placed on the conduct and public funding of basic research in the field, this could push research out of the public eye and public interest, underground to private funders or overseas, to organisations and territories where it would be subject to less regulation, transparency and oversight. This could result in research not being subject to ethical and peer oversight, such as ethics board approval, data sharing, peer review and dissemination of research resources;1

the de facto inability of future individuals who are the result of genetic editing, to consent to that editing;

concerns around the boundaries of eugenic use of gene editing technology, which the groups acknowledged could be used to reinforce prejudice and narrow definitions of normalcy in our societies; and

ensuring the gene editing technologies do not worsen existing or create new inequalities within and between societies, noting: Unequal access and cultural differences affecting uptake could create large differences in the relative incidence of a given condition by region, ethnic group, or socioeconomic status. Genetic disease, once a universal common denominator, could instead become an artifact of class, geographic location, and culture. A dangerous consequence of such inequality could be that reduced incidence and reduced sense of shared risk could affect the resources available to individuals and families dealing with genetic conditions.

Having touched on each of these issues, the group then outlined its consensus positions:

1. At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy.

It was noted that there is not yet a high quality evidence base to support the use of germline genome editing, with unknown risk of health consequences and ethical issues still to be explored and resolved by society.

The group observed that two major categories of safety concerns are (i) the effect of unwanted or off-target mutations, and (ii) the potential unintended effects of the desired on-target base changes (edits) being made. It noted that it is reasonable to presume that any human genome-editing therapeutic application will require stringent monitoring of off-target mutation rates, but there remains no consensus on which methods would be optimal for this, or what a desirable maximum off-target mutation rate would be when these techniques are translated clinically. The working-group thus outlined its views on the minimum necessary developments that would be required (at least from a safety perspective) before germline genome editing could be used clinically:

definitions of broadly acceptable methodologies and minimum standards for measuring off-target mutagenesis;

consensus regarding the likely impact of, and maximum acceptable thresholds for, off-target mutations; and

consensus regarding the types of acceptable genome edits with regard to their potential for unintended consequences.

2. Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research.

The group agreed that conducting basic scientific [techniques?] involving editing of human embryos and gametes can be performed ethically via compliance with applicable laws and policies, and that any study involving in vitro genome editing on human embryos and gametes should be conducted under rigorous and independent governance mechanisms, including approval by ethics review boards and meeting any other policy or regulatory requirements. Public funding for such research was seen as important in ensuring that such research is not driven overseas or underground, where it would be subject to less regulation, oversight and transparency.

3. Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.

Even if the technical data from preclinical research reaches a stage where it supports clinical translation of human germline genome editing, the working group stresses that many more things need to happen before translational research in human germline genome editing is considered. The criteria identified by the group in this position cut across medical, ethical, economic and public participation issues and represent the setting of an appropriately high and comprehensive standard to be met before human germline genome editing may be applied clinically. The group acknowledges the challenges of public engagement with such technical subject matter but encourages new approaches to public engagement and engagement of broader stakeholder groups in the public discussion.

The ethical implications of altering the human germline has been the subject of intense discussion in recent years, with calls for such work to be put on hold until the process of genome editing is better understood. ASHG supports somatic genome editing and preclinical (in vitro human and animal) germline genome research but feels strongly that it is premature to consider human germline genome editing in any translational manner at this time.

The working group concludes that Many scientific, medical, and ethical questions remain around the potential for human germline genome editing. ASHG supports somatic genome editing and preclinical (in vitro human and animal) germline genome research but feels strongly that it is premature to consider human germline genome editing in any translational manner at this time. We encourage ethical and social consideration in tandem with basic science research in the upcoming years.

This appears a reasonable position largely in line with the recommendations from the major national and international groups surveyed by the working group. It balances the need to encourage further basic research and validation with strong awareness of the ethical and societal implications of human germline genome editing, setting a high bar before such technology should be translated to the clinic. No doubt, however, the debate will continue, particularly in respect of public funding for such work. Whether the US will maintain their stance against public funding, in the face of international competition, and potential loss of talent and investment, remains to be seen.

Footnotes

1. In this connection it should be noted that China is a good example of a jurisdiction where there is very strong government investment in biotech, including CRISPR, and less regulatory standards than in the West. This combination of factors seems to be fuelling the pace of research there (many CRISPR firsts have come in China e.g. first CRISPR clinical trial in humans; first CRISPR editing of human embryos), but potentially at the risk of less rigorous, well controlled science being conducted (e.g. the recent retraction of the NgAgo paper).

See the original post:

Human Germline Genome Editing Genetics bodies weigh in on debate with position paper - JD Supra (press release)

Medical marijuana’s legal, but schools fear crackdown if students use it – Sun Sentinel

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

School districts are in a quandary over students who use medical marijuana, with some fearing that any help they offer could land them in jail.

Voters in November agreed to legalize pot for medical purposes but its also a popular recreational drug considered illegal by the federal government. And that has raised a number of questions as districts scramble to put policies in place. Among them:

-- Will local schools store the the drug on school premises or will parents have to come on campus to give it to their child?

-- What forms of the drug will be acceptable on campus? Can students apply cannabis ointments or patches on their skin or bring edible brownies in their lunchboxes?

-- What steps will schools take to prevent the drug from getting into the hands of other students?

Palm Beach County Schools Superintendent Robert Avossa said he plans to talk to School Board members to get a sense of what would best serve community.

We want to show compassion and also use common sense, he said. We may have to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

Broward County school officials say they are awaiting guidance from the state Department of Education.

However, Lisa Maxwell, who heads the Broward County Principals and Assistants Association, said her group would fight any attempts to make administrators responsible for dispensing or storing the drugs. She said the federal government may disagree with the states decisions to allow minors to access the drugs, and that would put her members in legal peril.

We would vehemently oppose anyone being required to administer something that they could ultimately be criminally prosecuted for doing, she said.

School districts could potentially lose federal funding for school lunches and Title 1 programs for low-income students since the policies run afoul of federal government drug-free workforce policies, warned the Education Commission of the States, which studies education policy.

The expansion of marijuana use policies in the states has largely gone unchecked by federal officials; however, the expansion into schools presents a different set of issues and could meet some federal pushback, the commission wrote in a recent policy paper.

Seth Hyman of Weston is pushing Broward to move ahead on the issue.

His 11-year-old daughter, Rebecca, has a condition that requires her to use a wheelchair and a feeding tube. She also is prone to epileptic seizures.

Taimy Alvarez / Sun Sentinel

Seth Hyman plays with his daughter, Rebecca, 11, has 1P36 Deletion Syndrome, a genetic disorder, who benefits from medical marijuana in their Weston home.

Seth Hyman plays with his daughter, Rebecca, 11, has 1P36 Deletion Syndrome, a genetic disorder, who benefits from medical marijuana in their Weston home. (Taimy Alvarez / Sun Sentinel)

She takes medical marijuana orally three to four times a day, but she cant take it at her school, Manatee Bay Elementary, because the school doesnt have a policy that covered it.

I would like my daughter to have the option to get her medication however the law allows, he said.

Hyman believes school districts are protected due to the state law.

He works for Kelley Kronenberg, a Fort Lauderdale law firm, advising employers on how to comply with the law. He points to a 2013 memo by the U.S. Justice Department saying it was not a priority to enforce federal drug laws for people possessing marijuana for medical purposes. While the memo was from the Obama administration, Hyman said President Trump hasnt seemed concerned about medical marijuana.

Still, he admits there are no guarantees his administration wont try to ban it in schools,

But if that does come to fruition, there will probably be thousands of parents with medically complex kids kicking and screaming asking why they are being denied medicine that has not been proven to kill anyone, Hyman said. People have a right to some sort of improvement in their medical condition.

stravis@sunsentinel.com, 561-243-6637 or Twitter @smtravis

Continued here:

Medical marijuana's legal, but schools fear crackdown if students use it - Sun Sentinel

Making Sense of Medicine: Is your cellphone killing you? – The Daily News of Newburyport

Posted on August 11, 2017 by Danzig

Some are saying that Sen. John McCains brain cancer, glioblastoma, was the result of long-term cellphone usage. We had a dear friend, Dennis, who died of the same brain cancer, but I doubt that he ever once used a cellphone.

Where is the truth about the dangers of using your cellphone? Answer: Nobody really knows, but there are indications that caution is advised.

What is glioblastoma?

Glia comes from the same word in Greek that means glue. Glia refers to several cell types that are not neurons, but which, since their discovery in 1856, have been commonly thought of as the glue that holds your nervous system together. This is true in a sense, but glial cells do more than that.

Its true that glial cells surround neurons everywhere in your body and hold them in place like glue. They are also rich in blood vessels, and so they provide nutrients and oxygen to your neurons. In addition, glial cells form the myelin sheath that surrounds your neurons, insulating one neuron from another and also getting rid of pathogens and dead neurons.

The -oma ending in medical jargon frequently refers to a type of cancer, where cells begin to grow out of control. Blast refers to cells that are precursors to other cells. That is to say that before a particular glial cell comes to be, it is preceded by an undifferentiated cell called a blast. Blastomas begin in blasts.

In the case of glioblastoma, it usually begins in cells that have the potential to differentiate into the type of glial cell called an astrocyte. There are other types of cancer that begin with astrocytes, all called astrocytomas, but glioblastomas account for over half of them.

Glioblastomas are the most invasive of brain tumors in that they grow very rapidly and spread readily to surrounding tissues, making them difficult to remove surgically. They may contain more than one type of cell, so that treating and killing one type of cancerous cell may leave another type to continue growing.

Incidentally, there is also relatively recent research showing that various dysfunctions in your astrocytes may play a role in psychiatric disorders like autism and schizophrenia.

Its about radiation.

Radiation is all around you. Your voice radiates sound waves. A lighted match radiates heat and light waves. The X-ray machine radiates X-radiation. And more.

All of the atoms and molecules in the universe are constantly moving around, jiggling, bumping into things. Heat is the energy that something has because of this movement, and the faster this happens, the more heat is involved. For example, you see water boil because the molecules are moving around and bumping into each other so fast that the original space isnt big enough to contain them.

Sound waves are waves that physically displace air in certain patterns. You hear because of the pattern of the waves of air that enter your ear; without air, there is no sound. The faster the waves arrive at your ear, their frequency, the higher is the pitch you hear. The greater the top-to-bottom height of the waves, the amplitude, the louder is the sound.

Light is an example of electromagnetic radiation, which doesnt require air and is very different from sound and heat, although EMR may cause heat. Rather, EMR consists of perpendicular waves of electricity and magnetism that always travel at the same speed in a vacuum, the speed of light. EMR also behaves as though it were a string of particles, which are called photons. That is, EMR is both immaterial and material simultaneously.

EMR carries a certain amount of energy that is dependent on the frequency of the waves. Low frequency is low energy, and high frequency is high energy. The spectrum of EMR is conventionally divided into segments from low to high energy called radio waves (RF), microwaves, infrared (IR), visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. A single gamma photon may have 100,000 times as much energy as a red light photon.

Dangers of EMR

Remember that your cells are chock full of DNA, the material that contains your genes, and genes are the biological computer programs that affect much of whats happening in you. A healthy life is critically dependent on your DNA genetic structure having integrity in itself.

As it happens, with exposure to high-energy EMR, like X-rays and gamma rays, a photon can knock an electron off a DNA molecule, ionize it, which can lead to cancer. At lower frequencies, such as RF and microwaves, there is generally not enough energy to disrupt the DNA in that way; the photons are not ionizing.

However, the lower-energy EMR does affect living tissue by generating heat as you may have experienced through sunburn. And youve probably cooked some food using the heat generated by EMR in a microwave oven.

How can your cellphone hurt you?

EMR is all around you: broadcasting radio and TV, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, microwave cooking, cordless phones, cellphones and towers, satellite phones, and many more.

The problem with the RF and microwave EMR is that they can cause production of compounds called peroxynitrites in your cells. These are derived chemically from nitric oxide, which is an important contributor to your health under normal circumstances. When overactivated by RF radiation, however, NO is a major player in a complex chemical process that results in peroxynitrite damage to your mitochondria.

Mitochondria are those energy producing factors found in most of your cells, and their health is critical to preventing cancer. The most dense concentration of mitochondria you have is in your brain. So while talking on your cellphone, or cordless phone, you are directly applying RF radiation to a most RF-sensitive area of your body.

It was long thought that genetic mutation was the primary cause of cancer. However, research has shown that while genetic mutation is often causative, its only a secondary cause of cancer. The primary cause lies with your mitochondria. That is, mitochondrial damage happens first, and then triggers genetic mutations that may lead to cancer. For more information, see my June 17, 2016, column, The prevention and treatment of cancer.

Research: inconclusive, but suggestive

There has been research into the effects of RF radiation on human health, and especially cancer. Much of the research has been limited and of poor quality, and so its difficult to conclude definitely that cellphone usage will cause cancer.

While not conclusive, however, there is enough credible evidence suggesting a link between cellphones and cancer that the International Agency for Research on Cancer says that RF radiation is a possible human carcinogen. There is a growing body of evidence supporting that link, and urging caution.

How to be cautious

It seems extremely unlikely that we will stop using cell or cordless phones in the foreseeable future. There are, however, several things you can do to minimize your risk of disease from RF radiation.

First, if you must hold the phone to your head, keep your conversations short.

Better yet is to keep the phone away from your body by using its speaker phone feature or by sending text messages instead of having a conversation.

Limit the use of your phone when the reception is weak, three bars or less. The reason is that a weak signal forces your phone to increase the power of its RF signal in order to communicate with the cell tower.

Carry your phone away from your body in a purse or backpack if you can. Separation even as little as an inch between you and the phone antenna can make a big difference in the amount of RF radiation youre receiving.

Its a question mark.

Did McCains cellphone usage cause his brain cancer? We cant know that, and we cant know if your pattern of cellphone and cordless phone usage will damage your health. We do know that there are real risks associated with the use of these phones, and its a simple matter to minimize them.

Bob Keller maintains a holistic pain management practice in Newburyport. His book, Making Sense of Medicine: Medical Matters Made Simple, is available locally or online. He can be reached at 978-465-5111 or bob@myokineast.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Making Sense of Medicine: Is your cellphone killing you? - The Daily News of Newburyport

Select Page ::