Donald Trump promised. Now start waiting – CNN International

Where Trump falls curiously short, though, is in his day-to-day commitments. They'll come. It'll just be a few weeks, he says. But then the weeks drag on. The phenomenon isn't new, exactly, as his campaign was filled with empty threats -- the infamous "beans" were never spilled on Ted Cruz's wife -- and unfulfilled guarantees, like the press conference Trump said, in early August of 2016, Melania Trump would hold "over the next couple of weeks." It never came.

Trump carried this tic into the White House, where after five months in office, his habit of touting, then failing to deliver either timely policy proposals or evidence to back an assortment of claims, has become a recurring theme of his presidency.

"We're going to be announcing something, I would say over the next two or three weeks, that will be phenomenal in terms of tax and developing our aviation infrastructure," Trump said on February 9. The actual outlines of a tax plan (cuts, not reform) didn't arrive until late April.

On June 5, he held an elaborate signing ceremony for the purpose of suggesting to Congress in a memo it move to privatize air traffic control.

To this day, no clear legislative text has emerged for either issue on Capitol Hill.

Funds to build "the wall" have been a budgetary nonstarter, despite Trump's claim at CPAC in late February that construction "is going to start soon, way ahead of schedule." He came closer to the mark on health care. The House unveiled the first edition of the AHCA on March 6, in the ballpark of what Trump promised on February 18, when he told supporters in Florida, "We are going to be submitting, in a couple of weeks, a great health care plan."

But many of Trump's most high profile dodges and delays have less to do with legislation than his untamed Twitter finger and the administration's subsequent clean-up efforts. The suggestion he was using a secret taping system inside the White House set off a chain of events that led Trump to claim last week that he was "100%" willing to testify, under oath, about his conversations with fired FBI director James Comey.

We'll see how Trump responds now if special counsel Robert Mueller comes calling, but it's hard to imagine he would -- especially with a private lawyer now on the case -- rush to offer sworn testimony. Meanwhile, those alleged "tapes" have been much longer in the offing -- and are, so far as they are real, very much Trump's to deliver. At his convenience.

Speculation over the nature of the would-be recordings began on May 12, when the President threatened his erstwhile FBI chief in a morning tweet.

"James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!", Trump said.

The "tapes" tweet echoed an earlier allegation, from March 4, when he alleged -- without any evidence -- that President Barack Obama "had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower" before the election. Despite repeated expressions of "confidence" that vindication was near, both by White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Trump, no proof was ever produced.

More recently, Trump and his top aides have been asked repeatedly about the Comey "tapes," and have, repeatedly, declined to provide a definitive answer as to whether or not they exist.

Asked by a reporter at his Monday briefing, Spicer punted again, saying that "the President made clear in the Rose Garden last week that he would have an announcement shortly."

Those comments, made during a joint news conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, came last Friday. Asked on three times in the course of two separate exchanges, Trump first replied, "I'll tell you about that maybe sometime in the very near future," then, "I'll tell you about it over a very short period of time," and eventually, "Oh, you're going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer. Don't worry."

At this point, after all the hints and speculation, there is a precisely zero percent chance a real answer would be in any way "disappointing." Unfortunately, if past performance is any indication, Trump making good on his promise to tell seems about as likely.

Excerpt from:

Donald Trump promised. Now start waiting - CNN International

Greece escapes brush with bankruptcy but austerity still bites – FRANCE 24

With your existing account from... {* loginWidget *} With a traditional account... {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *} {* /signInForm *} Welcome back, {* welcomeName *} {* loginWidget *} Welcome back! {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *}

Sign In

Your account has been deactivated.

You must verify your email address before signing in. Check your email for your verification email, or enter your email address in the form below to resend the email.

Please confirm the information below before signing in. Sign In

We have sent a confirmation email to {* emailAddressData *}. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{| foundExistingAccountText |} {| current_emailAddress |}.

{| existing_displayName |} {| existing_provider_emailAddress |}

Created {| existing_createdDate |} at {| existing_siteName |}

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Check your email for a link to reset your password.

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Password has been successfully updated.

We didn't recognize that password reset code. Enter your email address to get a new one.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{* photoManager *}

{* loginWidget *}

{* publicPrivate *} {* journalistContact *} {* aboutMe *} {* usernameTwPublic *} {* preferedContactLanguages *} {* arabicUsername *} {* persianUsername *} {* skypeId *} {* usernameTw *} {* journalistContact *} {* publicPrivate *} {* profession *}

{* newsMenu *} {* optinalert *} {* optinBestofWeek *} {* optinBestofWEnd *} {* optinBestofObs *}

{* newsMenuEn *} {* optinalertEn *} {* optinBestofWeekEn *} {* optinBestofWEndEn *} {* optinBestofObsEn *}

{* newsMenuAr *} {* optinalertAr *} {* optinBestofWeekAr *} {* optinBestofWEndAr *} {* optinBestofObsAr *}

{* newsMenuEs *} {* optinalertEs *} {* optinbestofweekEs *} {* optinbestofwendEs *}

{* optinQuotidienne *} {* optinBreaking *}

{* optinAutopromo *} {* optinPartenaires *}

{* optinActuMonde *} {* optinActuAfrique *} {* optinAlert *} {* optinRfiAfriqueFootFr *} {* optinMfi *} {* optinActuMusique *} {* optinOffreRfi *} {* optinOffrePartenaire *}

{* savedProfileMessage *}

Are you sure you want to deactivate your account? You will no longer have access to your profile.

Read this article:

Greece escapes brush with bankruptcy but austerity still bites - FRANCE 24

Cediranib May be Safe Supplement to Mesothelioma Treatment – Surviving Mesothelioma

The VEGF inhibitor cediranib may not yet be out of the running as a mesothelioma treatment.

Although previous studies have found it to have dose-limiting side effects, a new study in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology finds that, at the right dose, it could boost the effectiveness of standard mesothelioma chemotherapy.

Cediranib, an oral drug made by Astra Zeneca, is a powerful inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a signal protein that can stimulate the growth of cancer cells.

Research has found that mesothelioma patients who have higher serum levels of VEGF have a lower chance of survival. Cediranib has the ability to counter the effects of VEGF by latching onto VEGF receptor sites inside cancer cells, preventing the protein from having an effect on those cells.

In 2011, an NIH study found that cediranib could significantly shrink tumors in people with alveolar soft part sarcoma, a rare malignancy for which no other chemotherapy drugs had been effective. But a 2012 study of cediranib in mesothelioma patients found that most could not tolerate the drug at doses higher than 45 milligrams and many still had serious side effects like hypertension and blood clots at 30 milligrams.

For the new Phase I trial, mesothelioma researchers cut the dose in half and combined it with standard chemotherapy. In this study, most pleural mesothelioma patients who received 20 milligrams of cediranib along with pemetrexed and cisplatin did not experience side effects that were serious enough to stop the study.

The mesothelioma patients selected for the study had been deemed inoperable and had not yet received any chemotherapy. They were treated with 6 cycles of chemotherapy along with cediranib.

Although some did experience a drop in white blood cells, gastrointestinal upset, and low blood platelets, at six weeks, the disease control rate was 90 percent. The median overall survival for patients on this regimen was 16.2 months.

Cediranib combined with cisplatin-pemetrexed has a reasonable toxicity profile and preliminary promising efficacy, writes oncologist Anne Tsao, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas.

The next step for the supplemental use of cediranib in the chemotherapeutic treatment of malignant mesothelioma is to test the combination in a planned Phase II trial. Phase I clinical trials establish dose and safety while Phase II trials focus on a drugs effectiveness.

Although most mesothelioma patients receive chemotherapy as part of their treatment, it is only moderately effective. Even with the gold standard chemotherapy regimen of pemetrexed and cisplatin, mesothelioma is usually fatal within a year.

A number of new and ongoingmesothelioma studiesarefocused on potential methods forboosting the power of chemotherapy.

Sources:

Tsao, AS, et al, Phase I Trial of Cediranib in combination with cisplatin and pemetrexed in chemo naive patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (SWOG S0905), June 6, 2017, Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Epub ahead of print

Campbell, NP et al, Cediranib in Patients with malignant mesothelioma: A phase II trial of the University of Chicago Phase II Consortium, July 23, 2012, Lung Cancer, Epub ahead of print

Read more:

Cediranib May be Safe Supplement to Mesothelioma Treatment - Surviving Mesothelioma

Country needs USDA Rural Development – Iowa Farmer Today

We write to express our opposition to the USDA Fiscal Year 2018 budget for Rural Development. This budget, if enacted, along with the ill-advised recommendation to eliminate the position of Under Secretary for Rural Development, will substantially diminish resources dedicated to improving rural communities and the lives of rural people.

We believe a better choice for rural America is to continue USDA Rural Development programs at no less than the FY 2017 levels included in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (115-31). This will allow USDA Rural Development to continue its important mission of providing technical and financial assistance aimed at improving the living and economic conditions in rural America.

For more than 50 years, USDA rural development programs have improved housing, utilities and community facilities, and economic opportunity for rural America.

In FY 2016 alone USDA made available over $29 billion in loans, guarantees, grants, and related assistance to over 157,000 individuals, businesses, non-profit corporations, cooperatives and governments. USDAs total loan portfolio includes over 1.3 million loans that amount to over $215 billion.

Yet, there is still more to be done: According to an analysis of socio-economic well-being prepared by the Wall Street Journal, rural counties in America are in worse condition than big cities, suburbs and small or medium metro areas. Rural communities, and the people who live in them, have higher poverty and unemployment rates as well as a higher incidence of substandard housing and rent overburden when compared to metropolitan areas.

Virtually every community in the country with inadequate drinking water has a population of 3,300 or less. Although much of the country has seen recovery from the financial crisis, rural America still lags behind.

The decades long trend of community bank closure and consolidation has hit rural areas particularly hard. The number of community banks in the United States has declined by an average of 300 per year over the past 30 years, according to data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and a collapse in the price of agricultural commodities has added stress on many small towns and farming communities.

The administrations response to the problems facing rural America can only be described as a wholesale retreat. The FY 2018 budget eliminates funding for two dozen housing and rural development programs. The rescissions proposed for FY 17 and eliminations and reductions proposed for FY 18 total over $1 billion and well over $3 billion in program financing.

If approved, USDA will no longer provide direct rural housing loans, grants for mutual and self-help housing, financing for water and waste disposal systems, or loans and grants to small rural businesses, cooperatives and value added producers. Many other programs are reduced well below the current rate. What will be left is a hollowed-out Rural Development function, degraded within the department with far fewer resources to help rural America.

We urge the committee to reject the administrations FY 18 budget and reorganization proposals for Rural Development and instead provide appropriations at no less than the current rate and maintain the Rural Development mission area and position of Under Secretary for Rural Development.

The National Rural Housing Coalition campaigns to improve housing and community facilities for low-income rural families. These comments are from a sign-on letter to the House and Senate appropriations committees; full text is at http://bit.ly/2qJALEc.

See the original post here:

Country needs USDA Rural Development - Iowa Farmer Today

Donald Trump announces new Cuba restrictions: ‘We will not be silenced in the face of communist oppression’ – The Independent

President Donald Trump has announced that his administration will be tightening regulations on Cuba in order to help the Cuban people, calling former President Barack Obama's deal to thaw relations with the country's government "terrible".

"We will not be silenced in the face of communist oppression any longer", Mr Trump said in front of an excited crowd in the Little Havana neighbourhood of Miami, Florida.

The President pledged to help the people of Cuba, and to ensure that American money spent in Cuba will go to the Cuban people instead of the Cuban government. He characterised the administration of Raul Castro as a "brutal, brutal regime", and spoke with a flourish describing the brutal crackdown and imprisonment of religious worshippers in the island country.

"Effective immediately, I am cancelling the last Administration's completely one sided deal with Cuba", Mr Trump said.

Mr Trump also described Cuba as a major security threat to the United States, saying that the country had shipped weapons to North Korea while allowing "cop killers" to seek refuge within its borders.

The cop killer Mr Trump was referring to is Joanne Chesimard, a former Black Panther who fled to Cuba in 1984 after escaping from a New Jersey prison, where she was serving a life sentence for murdering a state trooper.

Before signing the Cuba policy rollback, Mr Trump brought several Cuban dissidents onto the stage and allowed some of them to speak. One played the Star Spangled Banner on a violin as the president and crowd saluted or placed their hands over their hearts.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a one-time political foe who engaged in a heated primary run against the President last year for the Republican nomination, praised the Presidents efforts to reform policy toward Cuba before he took the stage. Mr Rubio flew down to Miami with the President on Air Force One, and is said to have played a leading role in advising the White House on the new policies. Mr Rubio, a Cuban American, riled up the crowd with anti-communist rhetoric in both English and Spanish.

But, in a sense Mr Trump's policy changes are more rhetoric than action few immediate changes, and they are not intended to completely end the diplomatic relationship that former President Barack Obama established. That thaw was aimed at bringing to a close five decades of hostility.

Instead, Mr Trump has instructed his government to begin reviewing how they might change policy in order to meet the administrations goals. Those policy reviews will focus on how to best eliminate individual travel to Cuba that the White House says is being abused (technically tourism to Cuba is not currently legal for Americans), and on how to ensure that American money spent in Cuba or on Cuban goods gets into the hands of the Cuban people and not the government. American investment in Cuba is likely to see more restrictions than what is already in place.

The new policies wont change family travel allowances, and will leave other forms of travel to Cuba open, including trips for journalistic purposes. The new policies wont affect the current wet foot dry foot policy that seeks to shelter Cubans who land on American soil seeking refuge.

Commercial flights will not be stopped from servicing Havana, nor will cruise lines. The administration, according to one White House official, has no intention of "disrupting" existing business ventures such as one struck under Mr Obama by Starwood Hotels Inc, which is owned by Marriott International Inc, to manage a historic Havana hotel.

Nor does Trump plan to reinstate limits that Mr Obama lifted on the amount of the island's coveted rum and cigars that Americans can bring home for personal use.

But, Mr Trump has long promised to pull back on his predecessors landmark Cuba policy changes, and secured the first endorsement in decades from the Bay of Pigs Veteran Association in Miami thanks to that policy. Senior White House officials said during a conference call before the Presidents announcement that his promise to the group to hold the Cuban government accountable was a major factor in his decision in February to instruct his staff to begin reviewing the policy.

Critics of the President's decision, however, note that the US has a relatively friendly relationship with other countries with poor civil rights records, including Saudi Arabia, where Mr Trump travelled to during his first foreign trip in office in May.

Mr Obamas 2015 announcement that travel restrictions to Cuba would be loosened resulted in a flash of excitement from Americans who were eager to travel to Havana to get a glimpse of a country that sits just 100 miles off the coast of Florida, but has been behind a veil for American tourists. Since then, however, interest in travelling to the country has waned somewhat in the US, with roughly 76 per cent of Americans saying they arent planning on a trip there this year compared to 70 per cent last year.

Trump aides say Mr Obama's efforts amounted to appeasement and have done nothing to advance political freedoms in Cuba, while benefiting the Cuban government financially.

It's hard to think of a policy that makes less sense than the prior administration's terrible and misguided deal with the Castro regime, Mr Trump said in Miami, citing the lack of human rights concessions from Cuba in the detente negotiated by Mr Obama.

Critics say that Mr Trumps plans wont actually push the Cuban government to strive for better human rights record, and will likely hurt the Cuban people. Thats because many Cubans are self employed in retail and other services that serve tourists.

Sarah Stephens, an expert on US-Cuba policy who works to secure diplomatic changes like the ones made by the Obama administration, told The Independent that the lack of substance in Mr Trumps changes doesnt amount to substantial policy, and is instead a political ploy to secure conservative Cuban votes in Florida.

This is not a serious policy. This is a policy that has no achievable goal, it imagines no process, and it offers no end game, she said. By choosing to make the announcement before the diehards in Miami, the White House isnt even looking for window dressing, but admitting that this is simply about their game of politics.

Still, it will be the latest attempt by MrTrump to overturn parts of MrObama's presidential legacy. He has already pulled the United States out of a major international climate treaty and is trying to scrap his predecessor's landmark healthcare program.

International human rights groups say that renewed US efforts to isolate the island could worsen the situation by empowering Cuban hard-liners. The Cuban government has made clear it will not be pressured into reforms in exchange for engagement.

The Cuban government had no immediate comment, but ordinary Cubans said they were crestfallen to be returning to an era of frostier relations with the United States with potential economic fallout for them.

It's going to really hurt me because the majority of my clients are from the United States, Enrique Montoto, 61, who rents rooms on US online home-rental marketplace Airbnb, told Reuters. Airbnb expanded into Cuba in 2015.

"I have trust in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to Cuba, Jorge Saurez, 66, a retired physician, said in Little Havana. That's why I voted for him.

Mexico has urged the governments of the United States and Cuba to find points of agreement and resolve their differences via dialogue.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez, whose government is a close ally to Cuba, tweeted that his country has "undeniable solidarity with our sister republic Cuba against the aggressions of @realDonaldTrump".

At least one of Mr Trump's fellow Republicans has pushed back against isolating Cuba. Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, one of the most vocal advocates for easing rules for American companies looking to make deals in Cuba, called for a vote on legislation to lift restrictions on American travel to the island nation. It is unlikely that other Republicans in the Senate will allow that vote to happen, and has repeatedly blocked that move.

Link:

Donald Trump announces new Cuba restrictions: 'We will not be silenced in the face of communist oppression' - The Independent

Rogers teens earn first place at national history competition – Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

ROGERS -- A team of three Rogers teens this week became the first from Northwest Arkansas to earn a first-place prize in the National History Day contest.

Venkata Panabakam, Denise Martinez and Sidra Nadeem arrived home Friday to a celebration in their honor outside New Technology High School, where all three will be juniors this fall.

Web Watch

To view Standing with the Voiceless: The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Oscar Romero, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ase_lgCS_6c?

Source: Staff Report

They took first place for their documentary, Standing with the Voiceless: The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Oscar Romero, at the national contest at the University of Maryland. They will share a $1,000 prize from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

State Rep. Jana Della Rosa, R-Rogers, was at New Tech on Friday to present the students citations from the House of Representatives and letters of commendation from Gov. Asa Hutchinson and state Sen. Cecile Bledsoe, R-Rogers.

History Day is a competition for students in middle school and high school. There are five categories: documentaries, exhibits, papers, performances and websites. All categories have a junior and senior division. Each category, aside from papers, also has a group and an individual category.

The girls said they started working on the documentary in November. They put hundreds of hours of work into it.

"We've been meeting up almost every single day working on it and getting lots of people's feedback and contacting so many people outside Rogers to fact-check us," said Venkata, 15.

Romero stood up against the Salvadoran government's oppression of its people and called for an end to the violence against civilians during that country's civil war, which lasted 1980 to 1992. He was assassinated in 1980 while offering Mass.

Romero's life is a topic not as well known as it should be, which is why the Rogers students chose it for their documentary, they said.

"And plus, there are a lot of people from our community who are from El Salvador and they always tell the story, but they never finish it because they always end up crying," said Nadeem, 16.

It's the first time in almost a decade a person or group from Arkansas has placed first at the national event, according to Jami Forrester, a Northwest Arkansas Community College professor who has coordinated the regional History Day contest for six years.

"It's the Super Bowl of history competitions, so they just won the Super Bowl," said Forrester, who wept while watching the Rogers girls accept their first-place award Thursday.

"I've been involved in History Day since I was a junior in high school. I've never known anyone personally that has won at the national level. It's been a long journey," Forrester said.

National History Day, founded in 1974, has grown from a contest of a few hundred students to an international educational organization promoting the appreciation of history education.

The Rogers students were helped along the way by New Tech teachers Danny Burdess, Casey Bazyk and Todd Sisson.

"They did a really good job of taking feedback and implementing it in a way that made sense," Burdess said.

To reach the national competition, the girls had to get through the district and state levels. They finished second in their category at both of those first two levels.

All three girls vowed to compete in History Day again next year.

Twenty-nine students from Northwest Arkansas representing six schools competed at National History Day this week, the most Northwest Arkansas has sent. There was a total of about 3,000 student participants, Forrester said.

While the New Tech group had the most success, others from Northwest Arkansas did well, too. A group from Bentonville's Fulbright Junior High School placed eighth in the junior group exhibit category.

NW News on 06/17/2017

Originally posted here:

Rogers teens earn first place at national history competition - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

History examines the hazy history of ‘America’s War on Drugs’ with exhaustive but engaging detail – Los Angeles Times

In America's War on Drugs," beginning Sunday, History offers a four-part spin through the American government's complicated, often hypocritical, ultimately crazy relationship with narcotics over half a century its lofty motives, its ulterior motives. Fueled by the testimony of various scholars and journalists, reformed dealers, and former CIA and DEA officers whose agencies differently framed missions often put them into direct conflict, it's a thick, tortuous telling that runs some six hours with the commercials removed, exhausting but rarely dull.

The official declaration of the "War on Drugs" is seen as beginning with President Nixon's June 17, 1971, statement that "America's public enemy number one is drug abuse" a campaign that, we're told here, also served as legal cover for attacking the antiwar movement and black power movement. But the series runs back another decade to begin its story with the common cause made by the Mafia and the CIA in the early '60s attempt to rid Cuba of Castro, blurring lines that have stayed blurry since, and to the agencys accidental introduction of LSD into American society. (They had hoped to use it for mind control buying the worlds available supply from its manufacturer but it got out of their hands and something quite different happened.)

What's clear through this thicket of intersecting stories is that the American policy has often been made out of fear not necessarily manufactured, but often misplaced. Fear of communism, of terrorism, of crime in the streets.

Whether or not you believe that crack was a CIA plot to destroy the inner cities, "America's War on Drugs" indicates that the agency was not particularly concerned with the domestic upshot of deals it made with Latin American drug cartels deals that ultimately helped flood the United States with cocaine and transform it from a rich person's party drug to a poor person's quick high. The intelligence agency and the drug cartels might have had different, more and less noble goals patriotism on the one hand, money on the other but they share a certain amorality, a certain heartlessness.

Talos Films/History

Former drug trafficker "Freeway" Rick Ross is one of the commentators in History's new series "America's War on Drugs."

Former drug trafficker "Freeway" Rick Ross is one of the commentators in History's new series "America's War on Drugs." (Talos Films/History)

Many stops are made along the way Vietnam, Afghanistan, including the militarization of police (hello, Daryl Gates!), Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign, Bill Clinton saying, "But I didn't inhale. There's a colorful, if almost wholly unlikable, cast of shady characters, underworld legends, criminal visionaries, corrupt politicians, dirty cops, mad scientists and paranoid nut jobs on both sides of the law. There are political coups and drive-by shootings. Comparatively little time is spent on the Oxycontin and methamphetamine epidemics and for that matter marijuana, which as a subject does not enter the story nearly until the end, when legalization threatens the cartels' profits which have less of an international profile, and no CIA subplot.

Each episode begins with an advisory "The following program contains intense drug imagery and violence," which you would do well to regard, and one that "In some instances events have been dramatized." "Many," or even "most," is closer to the mark. Such re-creations are common enough, but because the filmmakers have gone to some lengths to make them look technologically appropriate to period and "real" caught by surveillance cameras or home video they get mixed up with the actual documentary footage and photos (which flash by too quickly). They demean the record. They aren't history.

Scant attention is paid to drug use itself, interestingly, and to the extent that it is, the users arent judged. (Reporter: Are you going to tell what's bad about LSD? Ken Kesey: Not necessarily.") If anything, they are regarded as victims of both the problem and the supposed cure three-strike laws, sentencing minimums that has filled American jails and prisons past bursting and had a generations-long effect on the inner cities. Nor is there any moralizing about drug use itself, which most of the commentators regard as inevitable a feature of human existence, not a bug if potentially destructive. This lack of censure is refreshing, but the question of how society might better treat drug addiction is limited to a few observations at the series' very end.

It's undeniably the case that drug epidemics, even apart from the drug-taking, create crime. There is nothing inherently insincere either in Bill Clinton's vow to "take our streets back from crime and gangs and drugs" or George W. Bush's that "Illegal drugs are the enemies of ambition and hope ... and I intend to do something about it," however ineffective or incidentally calamitous the results. As "America's War on Drugs" asserts again and again, this is an unwinnable war, like the war on terror, defined by unintended consequences, backfiring schemes and collateral damage. The faces change, as do the trade routes and methods of delivery, but the drugs go on.

Americas War on Drugs

Where: History

When: 9 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday

Rating: TV-14-DLSV (may be unsuitable for children under the age of 14, with advisories for suggestive dialogue, coarse language, sex and violence)

robert.lloyd@latimes.com

Follow Robert Lloyd on Twitter @LATimesTVLloyd

Trio of L.A. riot documentaries look back to 1992

Direct-to-consumer drug ads: A bad idea that's about to get worse

Excerpt from:

History examines the hazy history of 'America's War on Drugs' with exhaustive but engaging detail - Los Angeles Times

The US War on Drugs started 46 years ago today. Some commentary from Milton Friedman on that failed and shameful … – American Enterprise Institute

Today is the 46th anniversary of Americas War on Drugs Otherwise Peaceful Americans Who Voluntarily Choose To Ingest or Sell Intoxicants Currently Proscribed by the Government, Which Will Put Users or Sellers in Cages if Caught, see todays previous post on CD here. To bring awareness to this immoral, failed, costly, and shameful war on the American people, heres some commentary below from Nobel economist Milton Friedman.

In 1991 Nobel economist Milton Friedman (pictured above giving a talk at AEI, exact year unknown) was interviewed by Emmy Award-winning drug reporter Randy Paige on Americas Drug Forum, a national public affairs talk show that appeared on public television stations. In the interview, Milton Friedman discussed in detail his views on Americas War on Drugs, legalization of drugs, the role of government in a free society, and his pessimistic view of Americas future if we continue moving in the direction of socialism. Videos of the entire 30-minute interview appears below in three parts, and here is the transcript of the interview.

Here are some of my favorite parts of the interview (emphasis added):

1. Paige: Let us deal first with the issue of legalization of drugs. How do you see America changing for the better under that system?

Friedman: I see America with half the number of prisons, half the number of prisoners, ten thousand fewer homicides a year, inner cities in which theres a chance for these poor people to live without being afraid for their lives, citizens who might be respectable who are now addicts not being subject to becoming criminals in order to get their drug, being able to get drugs for which theyre sure of the quality. You know, the same thing happened under prohibition of alcohol as is happening now.

Under prohibition of alcohol, deaths from alcohol poisoning, from poisoning by things that were mixed in with the bootleg alcohol, went up sharply. Similarly, under drug prohibition, deaths from overdose, from adulterations, from adulterated substances have gone up.

2. Paige: For us to understand the real root of those beliefs, how about if we just talk a minute about free market economic perspective, and how you see the proper role of government in its dealings with the individual.

Friedman: The proper role of government is exactly what John Stuart Mill Said in the middle of the 19th century in On Liberty. The proper role of government is to prevent other people from harming an individual. Government, he said, never has any right to interfere with an individual for that individuals own good.

The case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case for prohibiting people from overeating. We all know that overeating causes more deaths than drugs do. If its in principle OK for the government to say you must not consume drugs because theyll do you harm, why isnt it all right to say you must not eat too much because youll do harm? Why isnt it all right to say you must not try to go in for skydiving because youre likely to die? Why isnt it all right to say, Oh, skiing, thats no good, thats a very dangerous sport, youll hurt yourself? Where do you draw the line?

3. Paige: Is it not true that the entire discussion here, the entire drug problem is an economic problem to

Friedman: No, its not an economic problem at all, its a moral problem.

Paige: In what way?

Friedman: Im an economist, but the economics problem is strictly tertiary. Its a moral problem. Its a problem of the harm which the government is doing.

I have estimated statistically that the prohibition of drugs produces, on the average, ten thousand homicides a year. Its a moral problem that the government is going around killing ten thousand people. Its a moral problem that the government is making into criminals people, who may be doing something you and I dont approve of, but who are doing something that hurts nobody else. Most of the arrests for drugs are for possession by casual users.

Now heres somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If hes caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think its absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail. Thats the issue to me. The economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has those effects. But the economic reasons are not the reasons.

Of course, were wasting money on it. Ten, twenty, thirty billion dollars a year, but thats trivial. Were wasting that much money in many other ways, such as buying crops that ought never to be produced.

4. Paige: There are many who would look at the economicshow the economics of the drug business is affecting Americas major inner cities, for example.

Friedman: Of course it is, and it is because its prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. Thats literally true.

Paige: Is it doing a good job of it?

Friedman: Excellent. What do I mean by that? In an ordinary free marketlets take potatoes, beef, anything you wantthere are thousands of importers and exporters. Anybody can go into the business. But its very hard for a small person to go into the drug importing business because our interdiction efforts essentially make it enormously costly. So, the only people who can survive in that business are these large Medellin cartel kind of people who have enough money so they can have fleets of airplanes, so they can have sophisticated methods, and so on.

In addition to which, by keeping goods out and by arresting, lets say, local marijuana growers, the government keeps the price of these products high. What more could a monopolist want? Hes got a government who makes it very hard for all his competitors and who keeps the price of his products high. Its absolutely heaven.

Legalization is a way to stopin our forum as citizens a government from using our power to engage in the immoral behavior of killing people, taking lives away from people in the U.S., in Colombia and elsewhere, which we have no business doing.

5. Paige: So, you see the role of government right now as being just as deadly as if Uncle Sam were to take a gun to somebodys head.

Friedman: Thats what hes doing, of course. Right now Uncle Sam is not only taking a gun to somebodys head, hes taking his property without due process of law. The drug enforcers are expropriating property, in many cases of innocent people on whom they dont have a real warrant. Thats a terrible way to run whats supposed to be a free country.

6. Paige: What scares you the most about the notion of drugs being legal?

Friedman: Nothing scares me about the notion of drugs being legal.

Paige: Nothing.

Friedman: What scares me is the notion of continuing on the path were on now, which will destroy our free society, making it an uncivilized place. Theres only one way you can really enforce the drug laws currently. The only way to do that is to adopt the policies of Saudi Arabia, Singapore, which some other countries adopt, in which a drug addict is subject to capital punishment or, at the very least, having his hand chopped off. If we were willing to have penalties like thatbut would that be a society youd want to live in?

7. Paige: Last question. You have grandchildren.

Friedman: Absolutely. I have a two-year-old granddaughter named Becca.

Paige: When you look at Becca, what do you see for her and for her future?

Friedman: That depends entirely upon what you and your fellow citizens do to our country. If you and your fellow citizens continue on moving more and more in the direction of socialism, not only inspired through your drug prohibition, but through your socialization of schools, the socialization of medicine, the regulation of industry, I see for my granddaughter the equivalent of Soviet communism three years ago.

Part I (below). Milton Friedman interview on Americas Drug Forum (1991)

Part 2 (below). Milton Friedman interview on Americas Drug Forum (1991)

Part 3 (below). Milton Friedman interview on Americas Drug Forum (1991)

The rest is here:

The US War on Drugs started 46 years ago today. Some commentary from Milton Friedman on that failed and shameful ... - American Enterprise Institute

Today is the 46th anniversary of our shameful, deadly, failed and costly War on Drugs. Can we call a cease-fire? – American Enterprise Institute

Today marks the 46th anniversary of President Richard Nixons declaration of Americas War on Drugs Otherwise Peaceful Americans Who Voluntarily Choose To Ingest or Sell Intoxicants Currently Proscribed by the Government, Which Will Put Users or Sellers in Cages if Caught. On June 17, 1971, Richard Nixon delivered a Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, and he appealed to Congress to give the highest priority to provide funding and authority to the federal government to destroy the market for drugs, with increased enforcement and vigorous application of the fullest penalties provided by law and to render the narcotics trade unprofitable.

Specifically, Nixon asked Congress to authorize and fund 325 additional positions within the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to increase their capacity for apprehending those engaged in narcotics trafficking here and abroad and to investigate domestic industrial producers of drugs.

In addition, Nixon asked Congress to provide $45 million in funding for Americas new war ($271 million in todays dollars) to enable the Bureau of Customs to develop the technical capacity to deal with smuggling by air and sea, to increase the investigative staff charged with pursuit and apprehension of smugglers, and to increase inspection personnel who search persons, baggage, and cargo entering the country. Funding of $7.5 million ($45 million in 2017 dollars) would permit the IRS to intensify investigation of persons involved in large-scale narcotics trafficking.

According to Nixon, These steps would strengthen our efforts to root out the cancerous growth of narcotics addiction in America. It is impossible to say that the enforcement legislation I have asked for here will be conclusivethat we will not need further legislation. We cannot fully know at this time what further steps will be necessary. As those steps define themselves, we will be prepared to seek further legislation to take any action and every action necessary to wipe out the menace of drug addiction in America. But domestic enforcement alone cannot do the job. If we are to stop the flow of narcotics into the lifeblood of this country, I believe we must stop it at the source.

Nixon concluded his special message with this prediction: The final issue is not whether we will conquer drug abuse, but how soon. Part of this answer lies with the Congress now and the speed with which it moves to support the struggle against drug abuse.

MP: Its been 46 years since Nixon declared a War on Drugs, and we know now that it has been a completely failed mission. We havent conquered drug abuse with an expensive, 46-year War on Drugs, just like Prohibition didnt conquer alcohol abuse. What the War has done is dramatically increase the number of Americans jailed for drug offenses, especially male offenders, as the chart above shows. As of the end of May, almost half (46.3%) of all inmates in federal prisons are serving time for drug offenses. Weve also exported our War on Drugs to other countries like Mexico, which has resulted in +60,000 drug-related murders there, more casualties than the U.S. experienced during the Vietnam War.

And even though we Americans take great pride in our +200-year history of economic and political freedom, we should be ashamed of our War on Drugs, and our status as the Worlds No. 2 Jailer, part of which is the result of our drug war. According to the International Center for Prison Studies, the United States leads the world with an incarceration rate of 666 prisoners per 100,000 population, see table below and full list here. The US jails more of its people than Cuba (510 per 100,000) and Russia (430). In contrast, Canadas incarceration rate is 114 per 100,000 population, Germanys rate is 76, and Japans rate is 45.

So as much as we think of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave, our record of locking Americans in cages for using intoxicants not currently approved of by the government tarnishes Americas great legacy of freedom. Isnt it time to call a truce or cease-fire on our shameful, deadly, expensive and failed War on Drugs Otherwise Peaceful Americans Who Voluntarily Choose To Ingest or Sell Intoxicants Currently Proscribed by the Government, Which Will Put Users or Sellers in Cages if Caught?

Excerpt from:

Today is the 46th anniversary of our shameful, deadly, failed and costly War on Drugs. Can we call a cease-fire? - American Enterprise Institute

NFL settles lawsuit with charity over gambling policy – NBCSports.com

Getty Images

The NFL usually wins in court. Except when it settles.

When it comes to the lawsuit filed by a youth charity against the league due to the relocation of a bowling event because of the NFLs gambling policy, the league settled.

Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today reports that the settlement happened Friday. The league has no comment, and the lawyer representing the plaintiff said simply that the matter has been resolved. Thats standard practice in the settlement of civil cases involving private entities; the party making the payment always asks for (and almost always receives) a confidentiality provision.

The case was set or trial on September 25, and the charity recently commenced an effort to secure sworn testimony from Commissioner Roger Goodell. Coincidentally (or not), the case has now gone away.

The group had planned to host a bowling event last year on property owned by a casino in Las Vegas, with the participation of NFL players. Citing a policy that makes far less sense now that the Raiders will be moving to Las Vegas, the charity moved the event to a smaller venue, incurring expenses and/or losing revenue.

More here:

NFL settles lawsuit with charity over gambling policy - NBCSports.com

Stop Gambling On A 7.66% Yield When The 7.51% Offers Less Risk – Seeking Alpha

Subscribers to the Mortgage REIT Forum received early access to this report.

Capstead Mortgage Corporation (NYSE:CMO) is overvalued. While I believe the preferred shares are a great bargain, the same cannot be said about the common stock. CMO trades extremely close to the lowest dividend yield on record and at a much higher-than-normal price-to-book ratio. While management is excellent, the team is facing macroeconomic problems. There is very little management can do to combat these problems. It isn't a matter of skill; it is a matter of the yield curve. As CMO faces these challenges, despite all the problems, the stock rallies back toward the highest levels seen in years. This is a case of high risk and limited reward.

The Dividend Yield

This might seem incredibly simplistic compared to much of my analysis, but sometimes the truth is staring us in the face. We need only to recognize it and accept it. The following chart shows the price and dividend yield over the last few years:

I had a buy rating on the common shares and established a position at the point identified by the green line. The rating was shared with subscribers first, but I brought out the public strong buy rating on October 24th, 2016. At the time, my analysis was focused heavily on the discount to book value. CMO was severely out of favor with analysts and investors. The premise for their bearishness was the collapsing net interest spreads. Ironically, that is precisely the argument I am making today.

The price is back to where it was about two years ago, when it started a fierce decline. The dividend yield on the other hand is only 8.33%, much lower than it was before. When we see the same price with a lower dividend yield, it reflects a lower dividend rate. CMO has been forced to cut its dividend due to the impact of both expected prepayments and actual prepayments.

Yields, Spreads, and Amortization

In the future, I want to put together a little series diving through the fundamentals of how CMO works. I think many investors today don't fully understand the mREIT. In the following slide, from its Q1 2017 presentation, I'm highlighting the yield on assets, the financing spreads, and the amortization. Don't worry; I'll explain each of those. For investors who want to access older presentations, use the index of presentations.

Here we go:

The most recent data is on the left and the oldest data is on the right. In the green, you can see the yield on all interest-earning assets was 1.67%. This is the highest level reported since Q1 2016. If it were a mere 3 basis points higher, it would be higher than any seen in the last two years.

On the third line down, you can see the finance spread. That is the yield on assets minus the cost of borrowing. That is trending higher because the Federal Reserve is raising the rate on short-term borrowings by offering to pay banks more interest on excess reserves. Those are payments made to banks to compensate them for not doing their job (lending money). When the Federal Reserve raises the short-term rate, the mortgage REITs must pay a higher rate to remain competitive.

So why hasn't the cost risen faster? Simple. CMO hedges out a material portion of its exposure.

So that leaves investors wondering: If CMO hedged part of its exposure to rising rates, why is there a problem?

The problem is that spread of .68 (from line 3) is not sustainable. The strength of the spread actually comes from the red box. That is the impact of premium amortization on the spreads. CMO is buying adjustable rate mortgages and paying more than par value for them. That is perfectly normal. Because it pays more than par value, say $102.50 for a mortgage with a balance of $100.00, it has to recognize the cost of that extra $2.50 over the life of the loan. If CMO didn't have to recognize that expense, the yield on assets would be 2.60%. That is shown one line above the red box. In the first quarter, CMO reported the lowest value of the last four quarters for this expense. It was reducing asset yields from 2.60% to 1.67%. This is referred to as 93 basis points. In the prior three quarters this ran 105, 106, and 96 basis points respectively.

I am convinced this expense will increase materially for Q2, Q3, and probably Q4 of 2017 compared to the values reported for Q1 2017.

Why Will Amortization Charges Increase?

The problem comes down to how quickly prepayments are coming in. We are entering a period where prepayments should be elevated. You're probably aware that short-term rates are increasing, right? How many homeowners do you recall talking to who are completely clueless about short-term rates increasing? At this point, I think it is fairly common knowledge.

That makes it less appealing to have an adjustable-rate mortgage. Homeowners who currently have those loans outstanding have an incentive to refinance into a fixed-rate mortgage. When that happens, the owner of the adjustable rate (such as CMO) is forced to eat the loss on paying more than $100 for the loan and then getting the $100 from the homeowner.

The yield curve is exceptionally flat right now. The rates on new fixed-rate mortgages are heavily correlated to the medium duration Treasury securities such as the 10-year Treasury. Consequently, homeowners with adjustable-rate mortgages should be receiving calls from their banks or credit unions offering to help them refinance into a new loan. It is in the banks' best interest to do that, because after they make the new loan, they can spin around and sell it off for somewhere around $102 to $105 per $100 on the loan. The buyer of the loan has to amortize that premium over time, but for the bank, it is immediate profits.

Therefore, I expect prepayments to increase. When the prepayments increase, I expect amortization charges to increase. Even though the gross asset yield, last seen at 2.6% should continue to climb, I expect the higher amortization charges to offset a material part of that growth. Consequently, I don't believe the "yield on all interest-earning assets" will increase much beyond 1.67% on average (remember, this is the green box at the top of the chart).

Because the higher amortization expenses should keep a lid on the yield on all interest-earning assets, even a slow growth in the cost of financing should be enough to eat into the net interest spread. Over the last year, the cost of financing increased 12 basis points. I think that is a reasonable projection for the next 12 months as well. Without the hedges, this could easily be 25 to 50 basis points.

If we see asset yields running roughly flat at 1.67% due to higher amortization charges offsetting growth in the gross yields, a 12 basis point increase in the cost of financing would chop their spread from .68 to .56. That would be a 17% decline in the net interest spread income, assuming the leverage remains steady.

What happens when that spread gets compressed? Dividends get chopped:

Rating on CMO's Common Stock = Sell

I see the potential pressure on the net interest spread as a major consideration for investors going into CMO. I was able to find value despite the issues when the yield curve was steeper and the company traded around $9.30 rather than $10.98. Now we are looking at a scenario where amortization expenses are more likely to go higher and net interest spreads are more likely to be compressed. Despite these challenges, the stock rallied significantly. This is a great time for investors to be harvesting gains. I know the ex-dividend date is almost here and some investors may feel inclined to hold on. Perhaps the market will ignore these problems for months longer, but I wouldn't want to play that game. There is far too much downside risk. I view CMO as a clear sell at this point.

Alternative

My concerns about CMO extend to other mortgage REITs in the same space. The adjustable-rate mortgages can be a great investment strategy, but they suffer when the yield curve flattens out and prepayments rise due to homeowners refinancing. As an alternative, I suggest (and own) shares of CMO-E. CMO-E is an excellent yield investment. Unlike CMO, there are no dividend reductions on CMO-E. When the yield curve flattens and net interest spreads decline, it doesn't impact CMO-E. The dividend yield on CMO-E is running about 7.6%, which is right around where it normally trades. Note: CMO-E traded up since I published this for subscribers. The stripped yield is now 7.5%.

An investor going from CMO to CMO-E would usually have to give up at least a couple hundred basis points in dividend yield. With CMO only yielding 7.65% and very little chance of an increase, the spread between the two is much smaller. If we use "current yield", which ignores dividend accrual, the yields would be 7.65% on the common and 7.36% (rather than 7.5%) on the preferred shares. This is a spread of only 29 basis points. It is easily the smallest spread I've seen between the common and preferred shares for CMO at any point.

Investors deciding between the two should consider the price volatility as one measure of risk. The following Google chart demonstrates it quite clearly:

Conclusion

Is the extra volatility in price worth it for an extra 29 basis points of yield? Is it worth the risk that dividends could still get pressured by amortization expenses while the Federal Reserve drives up the cost of borrowing on short-term loans? Picking winners on a consistent basis relies on finding less volatile opportunities where prices are steady and yields are high. At this point, the yield spread is exceptionally small and the price risk built into CMO is exceptionally high.

Want SMS alerts when I find an actionable opportunity? They are a free service for subscribers to The Mortgage REIT Forum. This is your opportunity to lock in prices at $330 per year before the next price increase on July 1st, 2017. These preferred shares are offering high yields and dramatically lower volatility than investing in the common shares.

Disclosure: I am/we are long CMO-E.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: No financial advice.

Read more:

Stop Gambling On A 7.66% Yield When The 7.51% Offers Less Risk - Seeking Alpha

Telangana to issue ordinance against online gambling – Business Standard

State govt has asked cyber police to track offenders and take action against them The Telangana cabinet today decided to issue four ordinances to amend existing acts. One of these ordinances will amend the Gaming Act to ban online gambling, said deputy Chief Minister Kadiam Srihari after the cabinet meeting in Hyderabad.

Another ordinance will amend Record of Rights Act to ban registration of government lands in the name of private persons and effect cancellation of past illegal registrations of these lands, he said.

An ordinance amending the Preventive Detention Act is aimed at curbing the sale of spurious seeds and fertilisers, adulteration of food items and the use of fake educational certificates.

The fourth ordinance will amend the VAT Act, to enable it to be in force for six years after the GST roll-out to resolve pending VAT disputes.

Another ordinance will amend Record of Rights Act to ban registration of government lands in the name of private persons and effect cancellation of past illegal registrations of these lands, he said.

An ordinance amending the Preventive Detention Act is aimed at curbing the sale of spurious seeds and fertilisers, adulteration of food items and the use of fake educational certificates.

The fourth ordinance will amend the VAT Act, to enable it to be in force for six years after the GST roll-out to resolve pending VAT disputes.

Press Trust of India

http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/wap/images/bs_logo_amp.png 177 22

More:

Telangana to issue ordinance against online gambling - Business Standard

City Council to loosen Casper gambling restrictions to aid pet shelter – Casper Star-Tribune Online

A small Casper pet shelter prevailed this week in its quest to loosen restrictions on the gambling it uses to fund its operations, sparking a debate at Tuesdays City Council meeting on whether local government should be in the business of regulating morals.

For several years, the Pet Ring Foundation has raised money from a handful of gambling machines at a storefront along East Second Street.

But when executive director Preston Pilant tried to switch machine vendors, he learned that city zoning barred gambling at his shop because it was within 300 feet of a church.

Pilant said he had consulted with the police and City Attorneys Office before starting the gambling operation but hadnt thought to check with the zoning office.

We completely shut down, Pilant told Council.

That was a problem because the shelter was largely funded by the gaming revenue.

So Pilant approached Council earlier this year to ask that the city change the zoning rule barring gambling near churches. City staff began working on a solution, and on Tuesday, City Planner Craig Collins presented Council with five options:

reduce the current 300-foot distance restriction;

measure from building to building rather than from property lines;

eliminate the distance-based restriction on gambling in the C-2 zoning district, which Pilants operation is located in;

or remove the distance restriction on gambling in every zoning district.

Council members were largely sympathetic to Pilants plight.

Its a stupid law, said Councilman Shawn Johnson.

Councilwoman Amanda Huckabay defended Pilants work and said his shelter provided an essential service to Casperites.

Preston is a little bit psycho about animals, but he has helped out so many low-income and homeless people in this community, she said. If they have no place to keep their animal, Preston will take them in.

Collins also spoke against the current regulation, which bars gambling within 300 feet of both churches and schools, as measured from property line to property line.

He said the purpose of zoning was to ensure the buildings and activities in different neighborhoods were compatible.

Its not to make sure people are doing moral things on their property, Collins said. Im always hesitant to regulate moral issues because not everybodys morals are the same.

Councilman Dallas Laird said the fact that the Pet Rings gambling operation was active for years before the zoning issue shut them down was evidence that it posed no harm to the community.

This is probably going on all over and it doesnt matter, Laird said.

Lairds main concern was that Pilant had an old school bus, painted black, parked next to the shop. Pilant said it was intended to serve as a mobile spay-and-neuter clinic but that funds never emerged. He said the bus would be removed soon and offered it to Laird for free. Laird declined.

Pilant was unable to be reached for comment regarding what kind of gambling machines he would be using and when the operation most recently shut down.

Council agreed to eliminate the distance restriction in the C-2 zoning district and allow gambling in those areas without a special permit. Members will still need to vote on that decision at a future meeting.

Continue reading here:

City Council to loosen Casper gambling restrictions to aid pet shelter - Casper Star-Tribune Online

Should we worry about a euthanasia market-takeover? – BioEdge

There is endless debate about the ethics of euthanasia. Yet even if one sets aside principled objections to the procedure, there are still contextual risks to introducing new medical interventions into a medical market-economy. We can never set aside the risk of a market takeover.

Writing in ABC Religion and Ethics this week, Daniel Fleming from St. Vincents Health Australia explores the risks of market forces undermining attempts to regulate euthanasia once it is introduced in a jurisdiction. Citing sources from Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel to Slovenian intellectual Slavoj Zizek, Fleming argues that once medical procedures are introduced into a particular social context, they face the threat of being governed by the ideology of that social context. And for free market economies, the ideology is capitalism:

Fleming continues:

These are uncomfortable considerations, but as the author observes, its a discussion that legislations considering euthanasia need to have.

MORE ON THESE TOPICS |

Read more here:

Should we worry about a euthanasia market-takeover? - BioEdge

Sick puppy facing euthanasia because she might be a pit bull – Newshub

Despite asking to adopt the puppy and offering full medical care, Ms Ob was told she couldn't. She got in touch with an animal rescue group, who were also turned down.

She says a vet tried to enter on Sunday morning, but was not allowed in. The centre has now closed for the day.

Hope is suspected to be part-pit bull. Auckland Council's website says it has "a long-standing policy, as did all of the legacy councils before it, not to adopt out dogs that are of this type".

"The Dog Control Act allows councils throughout New Zealand to adopt this policy and many of them do. We strongly believe that this policy is in the best interests of the community as a whole."

But Tracey Moore, Auckland Council's animal management manager, says the dog's breed has not been determined yet.

"It has not been with us for the full seven days yet. Any determination would be premature."

If the dog is found to be a pit bull, it will leave euthanasia perhaps the shelter's only option.

Ms Ob says the shelter workers seemed "truly as heartbroken" as she was.

"I'm not saying that the animal shelter is at fault, but they're holding a puppy so young and she's sick. And she's so sweet, but quiet and withdrawn, because she's so small."

Tracey Moore, Auckland Council's animal management manager says it's sad, yet avoidable.

"[It's a] situation our team sees on a daily basis where yet another dog owner has failed to take responsibility. The council strongly recommends people think very carefully before taking on the responsibility of giving a dog a home, and that dog owners desex their animals."

The dog will be checked by a vet tomorrow, when she passes to legal ownership of the council. A decision will then be made on Hope's fate.

Newshub.

More here:

Sick puppy facing euthanasia because she might be a pit bull - Newshub

Snapshot of jurors in the Yanez case – Minneapolis Star Tribune

The jurors The case of the State of Minnesota v. Jeronimo Yanez started with a jury pool of 50 randomly selected residents of Ramsey County. Here are sketches of the final 12 jurors, revealed during the selection process:

Juror 1: Young black man who works as a shift manager at Wendys and personal care attendant for his mom. He said hed never had a run-in with police.

Juror 2: An older white woman who manages a White Bear Lake gas station that has a contract with police. She said she had never heard of the Philando Castile case. The judge denied an attempt by prosecutors to strike her after it was revealed that she had pro-police posts on her Facebook page.

Juror 3: Middle-aged white man whose wife works for the St. Paul School District, as did Castile but she did not know him. He lives very close to where Castile was shot and is the No. 1 guy at a small metal finishing shop.

Juror 4: A middle-aged white man who had very little knowledge of the case. He said he owns a gun and called the criminal justice system a very fair process.

Juror 5: A middle-aged white woman who works at an assisted-living center and is highly active in church volunteer work. She said she had heard about the shooting at the time it happened but knew little else.

Juror 6: A white man in his 40s who is a wellness coach and became the jury foreman. He said he believes too many victimless crimes are prosecuted, including drug use and sex work.

Juror 7: A white woman in her late 30s to early 40s who works as a nurse at the same hospital as Yanezs wife but said she does not know her. She said she watched Diamond Reynolds Facebook video, but didnt seek out news about the case and knew a moderate amount about it.

Juror 8: An 18-year-old Ethiopian-American woman who immigrated to America when she was 10. She said she had not heard about the Yanez case before jury selection and doesnt watch the news. The defense tried to strike her due to unfamiliarity with the U.S. legal system, but the judge denied the attempt.

Juror 9: A white middle-aged computer support worker, who was not familiar with the Yanez case, and said, Im thankful we have police officers. She believes in the right to own a firearm, but added Im trying to stay away from them right now.

Juror 10: A middle-aged white male who is retired from preprinting work. He said he followed news about the case off and on. He said he had seen Reynolds Facebook video.

Juror 11: A middle-aged white man who owns several shotguns and long rifles to hunt pheasants. He said in his questionnaire that the criminal justice system has problems but is the best in the world.

Juror 12: A middle-aged white man and pipe fitter who moved to Minnesota four years ago to get a new start. He said hes a regular listener to MPR who knew a lot about the case. He took a permit-to-carry class three months ago.

Staff reports

Follow this link:

Snapshot of jurors in the Yanez case - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Stolen vehicles in Pueblo contribute to higher insurance rates – Pueblo Chieftain

Auto theft is often thought of as a victimless crime, but in reality everyone is a victim when vehicles are stolen, because people ultimately pay for it through higher insurance rates.

Earlier this month, Bloomberg News published a story identifying the top 10 cities in the United States with the highest per-capita rate of vehicle thefts in 2016. Pueblo was second on the list, which used the National Insurance Crime Bureau report as its source.

"The bottom line is that auto theft going up in Pueblo does contribute ultimately to what we pay in car insurance and higher rates," said Carol Walker, a spokeswoman for the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association.

Walker said stolen vehicles are one of the factors that can contribute to higher insurance rates.

"When you think of your car insurance, there are different coverages. Comprehensive coverage is what covers you if your car is stolen," Walker said.

"However, at the same time it also covers you for hail and flooding. So, unfortunately, the state also is ranked second in the nation for hail insurance claims, and Southern Colorado has been hit very hard."

Walker said the spike in auto theft across the state adds up to about $100 million in value of property.

"So there is a dollar value unfortunately to stolen vehicles. Of course there also is a public safety concern to see Pueblo ranked second on a list like that. At the same time, we all pay for it," Walker said.

Walker said the state is on a collision course with what people are paying for car insurance and seeing it spike so dramatically.

"It's Mother Nature unleashing hail year after year and auto theft going up 50 percent, and it's also that cars are more expensive to repair than they were before because of all the technology," she said.

"We are also at a very litigious lawsuit environment where it is very easy to sue insurance companies, and so insurance companies at this point are really trying to keep up with those high costs to pay claims and those increased claims."

Pueblo had a rate of approximately 900 auto thefts per 100,000 residents, according to Bloomberg.

Walker said while the state is seeing auto theft increasing, there are resources being put toward preventing it.

She is a part of the Colorado Auto Theft Prevention Authority; Pueblo is part of the southern task force.

"Every insurance company is required to collect a dollar on every insured vehicle every year, and it goes into the Colorado Auto Theft Prevention Authority. It's a granting authority that is set up to combat auto theft through the state Legislature," Walker said.

"That money goes toward multijurisdictional task forces. So law enforcement efforts increase to combat auto theft. There is also prevention and education training."

One of those preventions is to not leave keys in your automobile. Walker said comprehensive insurance still covers vehicle owners in those situations, but it is highly encouraged not to do it.

Pueblo reached a record for auto theft reports in 2016, recording 1,216 -- which equates to roughly three a day and about 102 a month. That number marked a 35 percent increase from 2015, when there were 899 auto thefts reported. Through May 31, there had been 463 auto thefts in Pueblo.

"Auto theft is part of the drug crime increase and the homicide increase, because usually there is a stolen vehicle involved with those other crimes," Walker said.

Pueblo police have said that the majority of auto thefts in Pueblo consist of individuals stealing cars across town and using them for a variety of reasons, including to transport crime suspects or drugs.

Walker said the state is always looking at trends in an effort to determine why auto theft is on the rise.

"One of the biggest things we are seeing is the relationships to other crimes," she said.

"From an insurance perspective, what they are looking at is claim trends. They are looking at not just one year, but over a period of time."

Walker said insurance companies analyze what they are paying out in claims, "Whether those are stolen vehicles, whether those are hail claims or whether those are increased car crashes. Unfortunately, CDOT is also reporting that fatalities are up 24 percent over a two-year period.

"It really is the perfect storm and, unfortunately, auto theft is a part of that."

anthonym@chieftain.com

Go here to see the original:

Stolen vehicles in Pueblo contribute to higher insurance rates - Pueblo Chieftain

NY Times, After ‘Corrections,’ Still Has Palin-Giffords ‘Targeting’ Myth in Scalise Shooting Editorial – NewsBusters (press release) (blog)


NewsBusters (press release) (blog)
NY Times, After 'Corrections,' Still Has Palin-Giffords 'Targeting' Myth in Scalise Shooting Editorial
NewsBusters (press release) (blog)
despite the New York Times' fondest desires, it turned out Loughner wasn't a conservative at all but a babbler of nonsense who adopted a mish-mash of views from both the left and the right and whose tastes in literature ran the gamut from Ayn Rand to ...

and more »

See more here:

NY Times, After 'Corrections,' Still Has Palin-Giffords 'Targeting' Myth in Scalise Shooting Editorial - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Kiwanis Club honors students for following the Golden Rule | Local … – Chippewa Herald

McDonell Central Catholic High School student Samuel Zwickel and Chippewa Falls High School student Tim Wollman were recently honored as May Golden Rule Students by the Chippewa Falls Kiwanis Club.

In honor of their recognition, Kiwanis Club of Chippewa Falls donated $25 to the charity of the students choice.

Zwickel, son of Thomas and Susan, selected the Boy Scouts of America Chippewa Valley Council. Wollman, son of Michael Wollman and Aimee Wollman Nesseth, chose the World Wildlife Foundation.

Throughout the year, the Chippewa Falls Kiwanis Club chooses seniors from Chippewa Falls Senior High School and McDonell Area Catholic Schools, nominated by the respective schools teaches and staff, using specific criteria including, among others:

respect for all nationalities, race, ages and gender

would be willing to stand up for the rights of others

active in doing community service

taking responsibility for ones own actions

The Chippewa Falls chapter meets on Wednesdays at noon at Avalon Hotel and Conference Center. For more information about the Kiwanis Club of Chippewa Falls, visit http://www.chippewafallskiwanis.org.

Continue reading here:

Kiwanis Club honors students for following the Golden Rule | Local ... - Chippewa Herald

Liberal Britain a counterfactual history – Liberal Democrat Voice

June 2017: The General Election has returned an entirely predictable result. It is the Liberalsyet againwho emerged as the dominant force.

Prime Minister Nick Clegg, seemingly secure in office for a second term, has now entered the familiar round of coalition negotiations with the third partyLabour. The oddly popular socialist maverick Jeremy Corbyn, no natural soul mate of the PMs, leads a party with 85 seats. The leading radical left Liberal, deputy leader Yvette Cooper, is leading the coalition negotiations with Corbyn, with defence and welfare policy expected to be the biggest sticking points. But no one doubts that in the end a deal will be done as it has been done so many times before over the last century. Speaking on Question Time, the long-serving Liberal MP for Kirkaldy, Gordon Brown, son of the Manse and self-appointed heir of Scottish Gladstonian Liberal moralism, has taken up his traditional role, growling that the impending Liberal-led coalition must have a moral compass.

***

The Liberals have long been regarded as the natural party of government in the UK, indeed one of the most successful election-winning movements anywhere in the world. But it could have been very different: there have been moments when Liberal dominance seemed under threat. Back in the 1920s, division had nearly destroyed the party. There had even been an unsettling moment in the election of 1924 when it seemed possible that more Labour members would be returned than Liberals. An article in the Spectator that year, subsequently widely mocked, had even been entitledabsurdly as it now seemsThe strange death of Liberal England. But the crisis passed. After Stanley Baldwins Tory government presided over mass unemployment, the Liberals, once again under the leadership of the aging warrior David Lloyd George won the 1931 General Election in a landslide. The Liberal response to the Great Depression dished Labour in the phrase of the time by implementing a national system of health and unemployment insurance and by vast public works schemes all set out in a best-selling pamphlet called We Can Conquer Unemployment. Contrary to many predictions at the time rising class politics did not destroy the Liberal coalition as its non-conformist tradition was fused with socialist ideas and a commitment to full employment and trade union rights that kept a majority of the labour movement inside the Liberal tent.

In the run-up to the 1935 General Election, the first to be conducted under the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies, the Liberals were bolstered by Labour defectionsincluding their former leader Ramsay Macdonald. The coalition government formed that year was dominated by Liberals but had the support of a faction of Tories known as the National Conservatives.

In 1940, a wartime coalition government was formed with the Liberals once again the dominant force. The Prime Minister Winston Churchill had sat as a Liberal MP since 1904, although his famous feud with Lloyd George and increasing discontent with what he saw as the creeping socialistic tendencies of his party meant he had remained on the back benches through the most of the 30s.

After a brief period of Tory government in the early 50s, another long Liberal ascendency under Hugh Gaitskill (Prime Minister 1955-1963) and Roy Jenkins (Prime Minister 1963-1974) transformed Britain: negotiating entry into the Common Market, presiding over decolonization, reforming divorce and abortion law and driving a massive expansion of Higher Education. A new multicultural society was emerging, leaving the opposition Conservative Party divided between unreconstructed reactionaries and modernisers, some of whom later split to form the niche Free Market Party to campaign for a smaller state. In the wake of their third successive election defeat in 1970, the leading Tory Lord Hailsham wrote a famous book called Must Conservatism Lose?

The answer, it turned out, was no. Commonwealth immigration, a more militant labour movement and a new radical youth movement, all drove a polarization of politics that soon generated the greatest postwar threat to Liberal electoral dominance. In 1972, driven in part by the Jenkins governments attempts to rein in the power of Trade Unions, the so-called gang of four (Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle) defected to form a new Socialist Party. The Tories, now led by charismatic Enoch Powell, gained the largest number of seats in the 1974 election and led a minority government that was soon beset by strikes that shutdown the railways and the power stations, and by race riots in the cities. New Left intellectuals gravitated towards the new Socialist Party, which took a leading role in extra-parliamentary protest in a way that the old Labour Party, still with its roots in working-class communities in the North West and central belt of Scotland never did.

Yet despite frequent predictions of their decline, the Liberals endured and prospered, topping the polls in elections in the 1980s under Michael Heseltine and 2000s under Tony Blair. The secret of the Liberals success has been their ability to appeal with optimism to a sense of fair play and social justice. Unencumbered by a historic attachment to a particular interest group, willing to use state power pragmatically, polls have consistently shown the Liberals to be the party most Britons trust with the economy and are most likely to regard as on their side. Over the years, pundits have had fun mocking the vacuity of the Liberals famous campaign slogans: Liberals Will Get Things Done (Jenkins in 1966), For the Many Not the Few (Heseltine in 1987) or Forward Not Back (Blair in 2001). But they worked. The Conservative tradition in British politics has always been strong, but the Tories won only four General Elections since 1926: in 1950, when they were led by the moderate Anthony Eden, in the crisis of 1974, led by Powell, in 1992 when mild-mannered Douglas Hurd won the most unlikely victory against Heseltines by-then fractious Liberal party, and, most recently, William Hagues minority government from 2001-2004.

Liberals have had the knack of presenting themselves as non-dogmatic yet radical when it comes to tackling social injustice; and as both patriotic and internationalist. The partys most notable political tactic has been to steal its opponents clothes. The Gaitskill government borrowed the Labour policy of nationalizing gas, coal and electricity. Heseltine even co-opted some of the egalitarian language and willingness to use targeted state intervention pioneered by the Socialist Partywhich ended up merging with Labour in 1985. To the frustration of the Randian libertarians in the short-lived Free Market Party, Liberals have always been comfortable talking about deregulation and de-centralisation even while simultaneously increasing spending.

Snipers from the Left and the Right accuse the Liberals of being complacent establishment centrists. And it is true that Liberals have remained on the shifting middle ground of British politics, casting their rivals to left and right as ideologues. Unlike their rivals they have sensed the sweet spot of British public opiniona desire for everyone to have a fair chance in life, for government to be present but not controlling, for Britain to be open to the world yet proud of its distinctiveness. Yet at the same time the secret of the success of British liberalism has been its radicalism not its complacency: to embrace socially progressive causes, to take on vested interests whether they be over-mighty trade unions or over-mighty banks. The iconic brown and cream poster from the 1931 election with a scowling Lloyd George said it all: Hell get things in time of need!

Those moments when the party was in crisis in 1916, when it nearly split over the Lloyd George coalition, when Labour came agonizingly close to becoming the second party in 1924: how different the country might have been had it not retained its faith in the Liberals as the natural party of government

* Dr Adam Smith is an active Liberal Democrat member based in St Albans and a professional historian

Read the original post:

Liberal Britain a counterfactual history - Liberal Democrat Voice