Amerika na ivici propasti?

[Meho Krljic]

Inače, sigurno ste čuli da je vebsajt koji je dizajniran da Amerikanci mogu da se prijave za državno zdravstveno osiguranje koštao više od pola milijarde dolara. Što je već samo za sebe užasno. Ali još je užasnije što i dalje, kad recimo odete na ovaj link:

https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js

dobijate ovo:




Bože, kakva propast 

[Ghoul]

pa to samo u srbiji može - jao jadni li smo - oh, evropo - poslednji ovde nek ugasi svetlo...

ups!

[Alexdelarge]

ni amerikanci nisu bezgrešni!

[-_-]

pa to samo u srbiji može - jao jadni li smo - oh, evropo - poslednji ovde nek ugasi svetlo...

ups!

Inace, 2 zanimljiva teksta, samo je drugi malo neozbiljniji:

Iz američkog sna o kome još maštaju neki mladi Srbi, probudili su se mnogi njihovi vršnjaci u SAD. San je, istina, zajednički - želja za zaposlenjem i boljim životom - ali dok se naši mladi sunarodnici nadaju da ga ostvare u SAD, sami Amerikanci veruju da ih sreća čeka drugde, i odlaze.

Amerikanci sreću traže u Kini

"Hafington post" je (...) sastavio listu koja služi kao dokaz da su Evropljani bolji od Amerikanaca.

Stvari zbog kojih Amerikanci misle da smo bolji od njih

Amerikanci su stalno u žurbi. Ukoliko ne odgovorite na mejl u roku od 10 minuta, klijenti već razmišljaju o podnošenju izveštaja o nestaloj osobi.

[Meho Krljic]

Pljuvanje biranim rečima po Obamakeru:

The disastrous ObamaCare exchanges are just the tip of the iceberg

Rarely has a government program rollout resulted in the level of disaster as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges over their first two weeks. The White House refuses to release enrollment statistics that should be easily gleaned from internal systems serving the exchange sites, if those servers actually remained up and running. On both of its two weekends, technicians spent long hours attempting to fix the myriad problems that stymie consumers, only to have the problems persist — even when site traffic should be low, as CNN's Elizabeth Cohen discovered on Monday.
Small wonder, then, that no one really knows how many have managed to actually buy a health-insurance policy through the federal exchange. The Daily Mail sought out answers from the insurance industry, and got estimates of 51,000 after one week — a pace that would have just two million people covered properly by the March 2014 deadline to comply with the individual mandate, far below the 30 million uninsured that the ACA was intended to assist.
Market analyst Bob Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, put the number much lower than that — at just 5,000. Insurers are seeing the same enrollees repeatedly purchasing, rejecting, and repurchasing plans, thanks to the poor performance of the federal exchange system, which serves 36 states. "One carrier exec told me that yesterday they got seven transactions for one person," Laszewski wrote on Friday, "four enrollments and three cancelations." The repeated re-enrollments have insurers so spooked that they are staring to worry that "some of these very few enrollments really don't exist."
Then there are the prices for the plans, which have given Americans their first taste of sticker shock from ObamaCare. The Department of Health and Human Services tried to get in front of the big jumps in premiums by claiming that the HHS-approved prices were "lower than projected," but Forbes' Avik Roy pointed out that the projections used by HHS for comparison were for 2016, not 2014. Prices for comparable coverage doubled, according to an analysis of HHS data by Roy and the Manhattan Institute. And for some the prices quadrupled.
But just how comparable is the new coverage? On Monday, the Chicago Tribune reported on another facet of newly-restructured plans and premiums stemming from the multiple mandates of the ACA, and found that enrollees will pay a lot more in premiums — and then a lot more out of pocket anyway.
The Tribune's Peter Frost found that a typical user in the system — a 33-year-old single father in this case — would see his premiums "more than double" from its current average of $233 a month. But if the single dad wants his premiums to remain in range, he'll need to sign up for an annual deductible of $12,700. The average deductible before ObamaCare for this consumer would have been $3,500.
Nor is that an isolated example, although it's on the far end of the spectrum. In order to keep prices low, 21 of the 22 approved plans on the Illinois state exchange have deductibles of more than $4,000 for individuals, and $8,000 for families. Frost notes that the average employer-based coverage puts the individual deductible at $1,100.
Consider what this means to the consumer. First, the government forces Americans to buy comprehensive insurance when many don't need it. At $466 a month, the single father in the example above will spend about $5600 a year on comprehensive insurance, which would far outstrip the medical expenses for most 33-year-old single men who might expect only a wellness check and perhaps a couple of acute visits to a clinic for urgent care a year. At retail costs, even with labs, that's going to run less than a thousand dollars a year at most.
Now, though, his insurance won't even cover that much. Before Illinois consumers see any benefit at all from their insurance policies, they will have to spend more than $4000 each year out of their own pocket — and without the benefit of health-savings accounts (HSAs) to use untaxed income for that purpose. That means that some consumers will spend much more each year over and above their newly-inflated premiums, making it less and less likely that they will ever see any benefits from their mandated insurance policies other than avoiding the small fine from the IRS for non-compliance.
Thanks to the new mandate on insurers to cover the uninsured with pre-existing conditions at community rates, most people will choose to pay that fine anyway, and buy the insurance only when serious illness or injury occurs that requires hospitalization or extended treatment. That mandated risk on insurers is one reason that premiums and deductibles have skyrocketed.
The result is a parody of an alternate, free-market model of reform. Rather than demand that consumers buy comprehensive insurance, the alternate model would have emphasized catastrophic coverage with high deductibles, which before ObamaCare were low-cost options for healthier consumers who wanted to indemnify themselves against unexpected major costs. Removing insurers from routine maintenance care would have restored price signals and competition to the family-practice market, which would have provided incentives for doctors to re-enter it. Consumers could then have used their HSAs, which are discouraged in the ACA system, to cover their own routine maintenance, and insurers could have returned to their proper role: Indemnifying people against major loss, not acting as wellness managers. That role properly belongs to patients and their physicians, not insurers and certainly not the government.
Thanks to the ACA, we have the worst of both worlds. Some consumers now have to pay enormous premiums for coverage they can't access until they pay enormous out-of-pocket expenses first, while insurers have to cover even more risk, and providers have to deal with even more red tape. When voters start paying through the nose in this system, they will soon recognize that the administration's ideas of reform are as workable in real life as their ObamaCare exchange website.

[Usul]

http://utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/

[Meho Krljic]

Report: Obama administration knew millions wouldn't be able to keep insurance

Before the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, President Obama promised Americans they could keep their healthcare plan if they liked it. But already hundreds of thousands of citizens are receiving notification that their plans are being cancelled because they don't comply with the new law, and, according to NBC News, the Obama administration has known for at least three years the cancellations were coming.
While campaigning for health care reform in 2009, Obama went out of his way to make one thing perfectly clear: if you like your current health care plan, you will be able to keep it.
On June 15, 2009, Obama said this: "We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."
In 2012, he echoed that sentiment, saying, ""If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance."
However, many are finding that not to be the case. More than 300,000 cancellation notices have been sent out in Florida, according to Kaiser Health News, and another 180,000 in California. In New Jersey, the number of cancellations tops 800,000, the Star-Ledger reports.

According to NBC News, approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million Americans who buy their health insurance individually should expect to receive a cancellation letter over the next year "because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law."

This could result in millions of Americans being forced to purchase different policies, potentially at higher premiums.


So how did the Obama administration know the cancellations would be coming?
The Affordable Care Act states that people who had health insurance prior to March 23, 2010 – the day President Obama signed the bill into law – will be able to keep those policies even if they don't meet the requirements of the new law. However, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened that provision, so that "if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered," NBC News reports.
Because the market for individual insurance experiences significant turnover, the insinuation is the Obama administration had to have known many policies "grandfathered" in would not qualify for the ACA. NBC News claims that the administration knew in 2010 that "more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them."
"This says that when they made the promise [that individuals could keep their plans], they knew half the people in this market outright couldn't keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn't make it either," Robert Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates told NBC News.
Monday, former Obama adviser David Axelrod said on MSNBC's Morning Joe that "most people are going to keep their own plan." When asked about Axelrod's admission of "most" as opposed to all, White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledge that some individual's plans will be cancelled, but countered that the plans they switch to will be better and affordable.
"What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage," Carney said. "... So it's true that there are existing health-care plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act."
Actually, what the President said back in 2009 was "[the Affordable Care Act] is for people who aren't happy with their current plan. If you like what you're getting, keep it. Nobody is forcing you to shift."
Only now, some who like their plans are being forced, including Laszewski. According to NBC News, he has a so-called "Cadillac plan" – "the best health insurance policy you can buy," he said – but recently received notice in the mail that it was being cancelled.

[Palmer]

Inače, sigurno ste čuli da je vebsajt koji je dizajniran da Amerikanci mogu da se prijave za državno zdravstveno osiguranje koštao više od pola milijarde dolara. Što je već samo za sebe užasno. Ali još je užasnije što i dalje, kad recimo odete na ovaj link:

https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/global/en_US/registration.js

dobijate ovo:







Bože, kakva propast 

mala sugestija: to je java skript koji obrađuje sajt (registraciju) a ne link za registraciju. sajt je: https://www.healthcare.gov/

[Meho Krljic]

Aha, hoćeš da kažeš da normalan korisnik nikada ne bi video ovu stranicu, to jest da je link koga sam ja negde pokupio trebalo samo da demonstrira da je skript loše/ nezgrapno napisan? OK, onda sam ispao najgori tabloidni novinar sagite 

[mac]

Otvori link u Firefoxu i onda desni klik i "View Page Source" i videćeš sasvim drugačiju i normalniju sliku za JavaScript.

[Palmer]

html script je statika (daje sliku),js dinamika (pomeranje slike duž str.).... prvi skript je zbijen jer je verov. dobro strukturiran. prelazom miša na hiperlink preko vidiš da te baca na drugi sajt itd.. ako se hiperlinkuje js onda je to verovatno greska, ali da, svaki korisnik moze da vidi html i js..

[Meho Krljic]

Retardacija u Americi ne jenjava. Par koji je usvojio dečaka pokušao da ga vrati posle devet godina jer je, eh, nemiran i jogunast, što je nekarakteristično za, jelte, devetogodišnjake. Sudija veli da pokušava da nađe najstrašniju moguću kaznu za njih kako bi druge parove ubedljivo odgovorio od ovakvih svinjarija:
Will Couple Be Jailed for Returning Adopted Son After Nine Years?

An Ohio couple who have returned their adopted son to the county after nine years now face charges of reckless abandonment by a prosecutor with little patience for the situation.

More on Yahoo Shine: Teen Orphan Tugs at Churchgoers' Heartstrings to Find a Family

"I want to provide as much deterrent as I can for parents who think, 'Oh, I'm honked off at my child; I can just abandon him,'" Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser tells Yahoo Shine. "After reviewing [the parents'] financial and psychological abilities, I couldn't wrap my brain around any defenses people in these circumstances could have about wanting to give back a child."

The parents, Cleveland and Lisa Cox, adopted the 9-year-old as an infant through Butler County Children Services; they brought him back there in October, citing issues of "aggressive behaviors" for which he had refused help, according to the Associated Press.

More on Yahoo: Fetal Alcohol Disorders Common in Adopted, Foster Kids

Now the child remains in protective custody as a ward of the state, Gmoser explains, awaiting the outcome of a grand jury trial. That's when a judge will have the final say over whether his parents will be able to abandon him for good, and whether they could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted of the misdemeanor. But, the prosecutor adds, his office has not yet been able to locate the boy's family, which includes an undisclosed number of siblings. Consequently, he has not been able to serve the Coxes their indictment.

Children's Services did not return a call from Yahoo Shine, and the Coxes could not be reached for comment. The boy's court-appointed attorney, Adolf Olivas, tells the Associated Press that the boy remains hurt and confused. "If your 9-year-old needs help, you get him help," he says. "It is not a question of a 9-year-old wanting it or not."

Earlier this year, a Tennessee woman was ordered to pay child support after sending her adopted 7-year-old back to Russia alone on an airplane. Other recent reports have looked into the underground practice of "rehoming," in which foreign adoptees, no longer wanted by their new families and often abused by them, are passed on via online forums to others who are willing to raise them.

"The common denominator is people who were struggling and who took drastic action," notes Adam Pertman, author of "Adoption Nation" and president of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. "I'm not defending them in the least, but trying to give some insight. For all we know these are lousy parents who don't know what they're doing. There's no way to know." Fortunately, he tells Yahoo Shine, "we do not hear about these stories often — that's why they're stories. But it doesn't mean we should just dismiss them as an aberration and that we can't learn something from them."

The most important lesson, Pertman explains, involves a shifting of perspective from within the adoption community and placing increased focus on postadoption support services. "We have to do a better job of providing the education and training to allow a family to thrive," he says. "When we see something like this, I wonder whether this family had the training, the support system and the services it needed to stay intact."

He adds, "Bottom line, we have to rethink whether our mission is just to form families or if it's to help them succeed. We need to move past the time when we thought of adoption just as child placement. It may begin there. But it doesn't end with it."

That becomes glaringly obvious in cases like that of the Coxes, considering the effect that the abandonment is likely to have on the boy. "Adoption is certainly about gain, but it's also about loss, at its core," says Jeanne Howard, policy and research director at the Donaldson Institute and director of the Center for Adoption Studies at the Illinois State University School of Social Work. "So for this child to then have a second loss is the potential for him to have a pretty profound wound."

Pertman advises that any parents, adoptive or not, get help if they find themselves at the end of their rope. "It sounds so trite, but very often parents don't go for help," he says. "Sometimes the services are not there, and sometimes they don't know where to turn. But a lot of parents feel that seeking help is an admission of defeat, like, I can't raise my own kids. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Edit: vredi malo prošvrljati i po komentarima, suze čoveku krenu kad vidi koliko ima dobrog sveta.

[Meho Krljic]

Heh.. Čoveka u Ohaju uhapsili jer u kolima ima tajni pregradak u kome - nema ničega. Ohajo od prošle godine ima zakon po kome ne smete da modifikujete kola da imaju tajne pregratke jer se to tretira kao namera da prodajete narkotike. Presumpcija nevinosti ovde dosta posrće, deluje mi.

Driver Arrested in Ohio for Secret Car Compartment Full of Nothing

Norman Gurley, 30, is facing drug-related charges in Lorain County, Ohio, despite the fact that state troopers did not actually find any drugs in his possession.
Ohio passed a law in 2012 making it a felony to alter a vehicle to add a secret compartment with the "intent" of using it to conceal drugs for trafficking.
Gurley is the first actual person arrested under the law. WKYC in Northeast Ohio covered the arrest, with no notable journalistic skepticism whatsoever:

They pulled over the driver for speeding, but then troopers noticed several wires running to the back of the car.
Those wires then led them directly to a hidden compartment.
Around 5 p.m. on Tuesday state troopers made the arrest under the law, which is meant to combat criminals who modify the inside of their car, allowing them to store drugs or weapons inside secret compartments, which can often only be accessed electronically.

They just noticed some wires, did they? Just while in the process of handing Gurley a speeding ticket, they noticed the wires?
They did not, however, find any drugs, which means they're arresting Gurley for the crime of an empty space:

Troopers arrested 30-year-old Norman Gurley, who didn't even have any drugs on him, but it didn't matter, because in Ohio, just driving a "trap" car is now a felony.
"Without the hidden compartment law, we would not have had any charges on the suspect," says Combs.
But because of this law, one more "trap car" is now off Northeast Ohio roads.
"We apparently caught them between runs, so to speak, so this takes away one tool they have in their illegal trade. The law does help us and is on our side," says Combs.

Combs' claim is not challenged by the news station at all.
The law says it's only a crime if the hidden compartment is added with the "intent" to conceal drugs, but it also outlaws anybody who has been convicted of felony aggravated drug trafficking laws from operating any vehicle with hidden compartments. The ACLU of Ohio warned against the new legislation:

The ACLU of Ohio believes SB 305 is an unnecessary and unproductive expansion of law. Drug trafficking is already prohibited under Ohio law, so there is no use for shifting the focus to the container. Further by focusing on the container itself, this bill criminalizes a person with prior felony drug trafficking convictions simply for driving a car with a hidden compartment, regardless of whether or not drugs or even drug residue are present.

Given this is the first arrest, you have to wonder how the courts might view a law making it a felony to alter a person's own property for reasons that have nothing to do with actual public safety. Maybe we'll see.
As for the car itself, the Institute for Justice's 2010 "Policing for Profit" report calculated that law enforcement officials in the state have collected more than $80 million in shared proceeds from asset forfeiture funds. Oh, and the hidden compartment law exempts vehicles being operated by law enforcement officers, so if state troopers can come up with an excuse to use the ride they just grabbed, they may be able to keep it for themselves.
(Hat tip to Reason commenter Warty)

[Meho Krljic]

Da ovo samo notiramo, američko tužilaštvo zaključuje da nema rašta da juri Asanža, on je samo publikovao dokumenta koja mu je dostavio Mening, koji je osuđen kao zaposleni u vladi koji je otkrio službene tajne, a Asanž je postupio kao svaki novinar i nije prekršio zakon:

Julian Assange unlikely to face U.S. charges over publishing classified documents

The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.
The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.



The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information — such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning — with violations of the Espionage Act. But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.
"The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists," said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. "And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange."
Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a "New York Times problem." If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said last week that the anti-secrecy organization is skeptical "short of an open, official, formal confirmation that the U.S. government is not going to prosecute WikiLeaks." Justice Department officials said it is unclear whether there will be a formal announcement should the grand jury investigation be formally closed.
"We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange," said Barry J. Pollack, a Washington attorney for Assange. "They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange. While we would certainly welcome that development, it should not have taken the Department of Justice several years to come to the conclusion that it should not be investigating journalists for publishing truthful information."
There have been persistent rumors that the grand jury investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks had secretly led to charges. Officials told The Post last week that there was no sealed indictment, and other officials have since come forward to say, as one senior U.S. official put it, that the department has "all but concluded" that it will not bring a case against Assange.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did former U.S. attorney Neil H. Mac­Bride, whose office in the Eastern District of Virginia led the probe into the WikiLeaks organization.
In an interview with The Post earlier this month, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that Justice Department officials are still trying to repatriate Snowden, who has obtained temporary asylum in Russia, to stand trial. But Holder also said that the Justice Department is not planning to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who received documents from Snowden. Greenwald has written a series of articles based on the leaked material. An American citizen, Greenwald has said he fears prosecution if he returns to the United States from his home in Brazil.
Justice officials said that the same distinction between leaker and journalist or publisher is being made between Manning and Assange. One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer. But the Justice officials said he would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.
Assange has been living in a room in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since Ecuador granted him political asylum. Assange is facing sexual-assault allegations in Sweden. Assange and some of his supporters have said the Australian national fears that if he goes to Sweden to face those allegations, he will be extradited to the United States.
But current and former U.S. officials dismissed that defense.
"He is hiding out in the embassy to avoid a sexual-assault charge in Sweden," Miller said. "It has nothing to do with the U.S. government."

[Ghoul]

Heh.. Čoveka u Ohaju uhapsili jer u kolima ima tajni pregradak u kome - nema ničega.

ha!
to ko u TETOVIRANJU, kad čoveka uapse što nosi - prazan kofer.
banditska država!

[Truman]

Ja bih malo u tu banditsku državu...

[scallop]

Šta čekaš?

[Truman]

Nezaposlen sam, ne mogu da dobijem vizu. Jedino ako neko od vas ima neku ideju šta i kako.

[Meho Krljic]

Petnaestogodišnji učenik iz Noksvila, Tenesi, na času zapalio nastavnicu. I ovo nije žargon, bukvalno ju je zapalio:


Student Sets Teacher Gabriela Peñalba On Fire: Police

A Tennessee high school teacher was set on fire by one of her students, cops said.
WATE reports that Gabriela Penalba, 23, turned her back to her class on Monday morning at West High School in Knoxville when a 15-year-old male student set her hair and shirt ablaze using his lighter, police said.
Students quickly put the fire out.
Gawker notes that the student allegedly "exploited the commotion" by throwing the lighter out the window and fleeing before being captured by police.
The quick thinking of her students helped Penalba avoid any burns, according to WBIR.

The student faces aggravated assault and evading arrest charges.
His name has not been released because he's a minor and has not been charged as an adult.

[scallop]

Tako to ide jer ih sad zovu studentima. Moj Bela doskora beše student predškolske ustanove.

[Father Jape]

Malo izborne statistike:
http://geographer-at-large.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-obama-won-election.html

Ovako bi izgledali rezultati prošlih predsedničkih izbora da su samo beli muškarci glasali:

[Meho Krljic]

Dostupnost privatnih podataka elementima vlasti je neprijatna stvar, evo recimo:

Disabled woman denied entry to U.S. after agent cites supposedly private medical details

A Toronto woman is shocked after she was denied entry into the U.S. because she had been hospitalized for clinical depression.
Ellen Richardson went to Pearson airport on Monday full of joy about flying to New York City and from there going on a 10-day Caribbean cruise for which she'd paid about $6,000. But a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent with the Department of Homeland Security killed that dream when he denied her entry. "I was turned away, I was told, because I had a hospitalization in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression,'' said Richardson, who is a paraplegic and set up her cruise in collaboration with a March of Dimes group of about 12 others. The Weston woman was told by the U.S. agent she would have to get "medical clearance'' and be examined by one of only three doctors in Toronto whose assessments are accepted by Homeland Security. She was given their names and told a call to her psychiatrist "would not suffice.''

At the time, Richardson said, she was so shocked and devastated by what was going on, she wasn't thinking about how U.S. authorities could access her supposedly private medical information.  "I was so aghast. I was saying, 'I don't understand this. What is the problem?' I was so looking forward to getting away . . . I'd even brought a little string of Christmas lights I was going to string up in the cabin. . . . It's not like I can just book again right away,'' she said, referring to the time and planning that goes into taking a trip as a disabled person. Richardson said she'd had no discussion whatsoever with the agent at the airport about her medical history or background.  Previous to her hospitalization in 2012, Richardson had attempted suicide in 2001, as a result of delusions. But medications put her on an even keel and stabilized her for years, with no incidents. A personal relationship breakup in 2012 caused her clinical depression and hospitalization (there was no police involvement). But again, her condition stabilized and Richardson, who has a master's degree in counselling, sees a psychiatrist with whom she has a very good relationship.  She's been on three cruises since 2001, travelling through the U.S., and has never had a problem at Pearson with U.S. authorities.  No U.S. border agent has ever brought up the 2001 suicide attempt, including the agent on Monday who only mentioned her 2012 hospitalization, she said. He cited the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212, which denies entry to people who have had a physical or mental disorder that may pose a "threat to the property, safety or welfare'' of themselves or others. The agent gave her a signed document which stated that "system checks'' had found she "had a medical episode in June 2012'' and that because of the "mental illness episode'' she would need a medical evaluation before being accepted.  U.S. Customs and Border Protection media spokeswoman Jenny Burke said that due to privacy laws, "the department is prohibited from discussing specific cases.'' MP Mike Sullivan said what has happened to his constituent is "enormously troubling. . . . How did U.S. agents get her personal medical information?'' He said he will be getting in touch with federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart "and demanding to know how this happened. We're very concerned if Canadians' personal medical information is being communicated to U.S. authorities.'' Richardson has also spoken to her lawyer, David McGhee, about what she believes to be a "breach of privacy'' as well as an act of discrimination against people with mental health issues.  McGhee has sent a letter to Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews asking how this breach could have occurred. "The incident in 2012 was hospitalization for depression. Police were not involved,'' McGhee said. "I've asked Deb Matthews to tell me if she's aware of any provincial or federal authority to allow U.S. authorities to have access to our medical records. Medical records are supposed to be strictly confidential. '' U.S. authorities "do not have access to medical or other health records for Ontarians travelling to the U.S.,'' said health ministry spokeswoman Joanne Woodward Fraser, adding the ministry could not provide any additional information. Richardson's bad luck continued when she tried to get the cost of her trip refunded. Her insurance is with Ingle International and clients with problems are supposed to contact the help organization called OneWorld Assist.  OneWorld Assist's Alex Longuepee wrote to Richardson: "Unfortunately, being denied boarding is not a covered risk under the policy. "Also, we do have a general exclusion which reads as the following: 'Psychological disorders, emotional disorders. Acute psychosis is not excluded unless drug or alcohol induced.' '' In an email to the Star, spokeswoman Amber Robinson confirmed that Richardson's insurance policy does not cover people denied entry to the U.S. The policy also doesn't cover expenses "incurred directly or indirectly as a result of psychological disorders, emotional or mental disorders.'' Robinson said the company has "reached out'' to Richardson to start the claim process "which will allow us to review her claim in more detail. Hopefully, we'll be able to assist Ms. Richardson in some way.''

[scallop]

Taj C&B Protection je čudo. Svaki put kad smo išli tamo utronjavao sam se šta me čeka. To je kao grom ili zemljotres ili vulkanska erupcija; obori te, a da ništa ne možeš da učiniš. Otkako su pojačali svetski nadzor, a ZS sumnjiv zbog svih sranja koja ovde pravimo, situacija je još gora. Činjenica je da taj nadzor nije efikasan na globalnom nivou, ali pojedincima može da napravi itekakve zajebancije. Naravno, svi prekršioci svih normi ponašanja kroz to prolaze kao pas kroz rosu, jer su pripremljeni. Najebu nevini. Možda su posumnjali da bi ova žena mogla da skoči sa jarbola kruzera zbog svoje depresije.

[Meho Krljic]

Da, samo im je promaklo da je paraplegična pa da bi joj skakanje išlo malo teže. Da ne pominjemo da je dobro pitanje i odakle njima njena zdravstvena istorija, pošto su te vrste, jelte, podataka, strogo privatne & poverljive...

Ali, da, dobro veliš:

svi prekršioci svih normi ponašanja kroz to prolaze kao pas kroz rosu, jer su pripremljeni. Najebu nevini.

[Meho Krljic]

O, bože, Amerikanci.... Ubiće ih taj puritanizam.

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/breast-cancer-survivor-responds-to-nyt-photo-controversy-202828081.html

[Meho Krljic]

Da li ikog više ovo iznenađuje? Američka administracija malko lagala u pogledu napada bojnim otrovima u Siriji...

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has dropped yet another bombshell allegation: President Obama wasn't honest with the American people when he blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack in that killed hundreds of civilians.    In early September, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had proof that the nerve-gas attack was made on Assad's orders. "We know the Assad regime was responsible," President Obama told the nation in an address days after this revelation, which he said pushed him over the "red line" in considering military intervention.
But in a long story published Sunday for the London Review of Books, Hersh — best known for his exposés on the cover-ups of the My Lai Massacre and of Abu Ghraib – said the administration "cherry-picked intelligence," citing conversations with intelligence and military officials.

A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: 'The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, "How can we help this guy" – Obama – "when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?"'

Here's what Hersh alleges:
The administration buried intelligence on the fundamentalist group/rebel group al-Nusra. It was seen, Hersh says, as an alarming threat by May, with the U.S. being aware of al-Nusra member able to make and use sarin, and yet the group – associated with the rebel opposition in Syria – was never considered a suspect in the sarin attacks. Hersh refers to a top-secret June cable sent to the deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency that said al-Nusra could acquire and use sarin. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Defense Intelligence Agency could not find the document in question, even when given its specific codes.
RELATED: October and November Are the Cruellest Months For Healthcare.Gov

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, told a press conference: 'It's very important to note that only the [Assad] regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition possesses sarin.'
It is not known whether the highly classified reporting on al-Nusra was made available to Power's office, but her comment was a reflection of the attitude that swept through the administration.

The administration was learning about the attack at roughly the same speed civilians were. Hersh says the thorough daily intelligence briefings in the days surrounding the gas attack did not make a single mention of Syria, even as videos and photos of the attack went viral across the Internet. He added that there was revealed a sensor system in Syria that had, in December 2012, shown sarin production at a chemical weapons depot arranged by the Syrian army. Though it was unclear whether this was a simulation or not – all militaries, Hersh says, practice simulations of such things – Obama promptly warned Syria that use of sarin gas would be "unacceptable."

'If what the sensors saw last December was so important that the president had to call and say, "Knock it off," why didn't the president issue the same warning three days before the gas attack in August?'

The media succumbed to confirmation bias in response to a UN report on the attack. That report, which is less than certain in its terms, said that the spent weapon "indicatively matches" the specifics of a 330mm calibre artillery rocket. MIT professor Theodore Postol and other munitions experts later reviewed the photos and said that it was improvised, likely made locally, didn't match anything in the Syrian arsenal and would not have been able to travel the nine kilometres from the Syrian army base that the media presumed it was fired from.

Postol and a colleague, Richard M. Lloyd, published an analysis two weeks after 21 August in which they correctly assessed that the rockets involved carried a far greater payload of sarin than previously estimated. The

Times reported on that analysis at length, describing Postol and Lloyd as 'leading weapons experts'. The pair's later study about the rockets' flight paths and range, which contradicted previous Times reporting, was emailed to the newspaper last week; it has so far gone unreported.

Though a UN resolution nullified the chances of American military intervention, the impact would be significant if the allegations hold up; recall that President George W. Bush's legacy was deeply tainted by charges that the U.S. had no proof of nuclear weapons in Iraq when they said they did. Hersh hints at the seriousness of the charges himself: "The cherry-picking was similar to the process used to justify the Iraq war."
This article was originally published at http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/seymour-hersh-alleges-obama-administration-lied-syria-gas-attack/355899/

[scallop]

Da li ikog više ovo iznenađuje? Američka administracija malko lagala u pogledu napada bojnim otrovima u Siriji...

Jok.

[Tex Murphy]

Мене изненађује. Тј. не изненађује ме, него једноставно не вјерујем у те гнусне лажи против добитника Нобелове награде за мир.

[scallop]

Изненађује те? Ниси гледао Мастергејт? Председник никад не зна шта раде његови сарадници.

[Meho Krljic]

Još malo onog što bi Skalop napisao da smo ga pitali:
Амерички крах 2016. године

Како један публициста објашњава ,,нову заверу да се уништи Америка" и шта предлаже да се то спречи


Вашингтон – Следећа америчка криза која ће донети истински крах догодиће се 2016. године!
Предвиђање још једног песимисте и пророка пропасти, каквих је последњих година било много? Зашто баш 2016, и шта ће се у ствари догодити?
,,Крах 2016" у ствари је наслов (са поднасловом: ,,Завера да се уништи Америка и шта можемо да учинимо да то спречимо") нове књиге Тома Хартмана (62) који би могао да се опише као типичан Американац.
Рано је наиме научио да готово све зависи од њега: радио је још као средњошколац, студије је напустио да би постао предузетник, био је и психотерапеут, а данас је радио-водитељ са репутацијом најпопуларнијег међу онима који заговарају либералне идеје (они конзервативни додуше имају бројнију публику и добијају већи публицитет).
Недељно има 2,75 милиона слушалаца, а почесто неке своје идеје (као уосталом и његове колеге) уобличи у књиге (досад је објавио око двадесет), од који су неке доспевале и на референтну листу бестселера ,,Њујорк тајмса".
Најновију је представио у култној вашингтонској књижари ,,Политикс енд проуз" (,,Политика и проза"), једној од ретких која преживљава дигиталну олују коју је изазвао ,,Амазон". Од пре две године је у рукама познатог брачног пара престоничких новинара, а међу њеним муштеријама је и председник Барак Обама са ћеркама, који су тамо недавно купили божићне поклоне.
После разговора са аутором открива се да је апокалиптички наслов само маркетиншка провокација, али и да се књига заиста бави великим и суштинским проблемима ове земље.
,,Ствари у Америци изгледају као да су под контролом, али само док их не осмотрите изблиза и не схватите да су то само кулисе иза којих нема ничега", гласи Хартманова дијагноза коју заснива на мноштву симптома, међу којима је главни да су темељи на којима је израсла америчка нација – подривени.
То је, по њему, резултат процеса који се збива у последњих 30 година – почетке везује за ,,револуцију" Роналда Регана, који чувеном реченицом изговореном на својој првој инаугурацији (,,Влада није решење за наше проблеме, влада је проблем"), почиње демонтажу регулативе економског система створеног после ,,Велике депресије" из тридесетих година прошлог века, замењујући је ,,невидљивом руком" слободног тржишта.
Све дотле, аргументује Хартман, приходи запослених Американаца пратили су пораст продуктивности. С тим у вези наводи прогнозу магазина ,,Тајм" из 1960, по којој ће пораст продуктивности (и плата) 2000. довести до ,,друштва доколице": радиће се 20 до 30 сати дневно, а  зарађивати у просеку око 80.000 годишње у данашњим доларима (садашњи просек је иначе око 43.000).
Оно што се међутим догодило то је да је продуктивност наставила да расте, али да су приходи средње класе стагнирали, па се реално чак и смањивали. Да би одржали стандард, грађани почињу да се задужују, тако да је све што данас поседују,,,под хипотеком", узето на кредит.
,,Људи данас не купују аутомобиле као некад, већ их рентирају (лизинг), не купују куће, већ их позајмљују од банака. Већина и студира на кредит, па су укупни студентски дугови данас чак један билион – хиљаду милијарди долара."
На другој страни, један одсто најбогатијих захвата све већи део националног економског колача. То је, каже Хартман, постало могуће ,,зато што смо играли фудбал без судије, без правила и без статива... У нашој економији смо увели правило да ко има највише пара одређује где ће се поставити голови".
По њему, у америчкој историји револуције се догађају сваких 70 до 80 година. Прва је била рат за независност 1775–1783, друга Грађански рат 1861–1865, трећа ,,Велика депресија" тридесетих година 20. века, а најновија је ,,Велика рецесија" из 2008.
,,Први пут смо се изборили да од колоније постанемо самостална нација, други пут смо окончали ропство и започели индустријску револуцију, а трећу велику кризу смо искористили да после ње створимо најјачу средњу класу коју је свет икад видео..."
Четврта, најновија раскрсница је још недовршен процес у којем још није извршена коренита реформа као после ранијих. Нови крах ће, по овом аутору, бити само продужетак кризе из 2008. Он не мора да дође баш 2016, може да се догоди и раније, али ће, каже, председник Обама и његова влада по сваку цену настојати да га одложе док им не истекне мандат, на сличан начин како је то (безуспешно додуше) покушао да кризу до свог исељења из Беле куће спречи његов претходник Џорџ Буш.
,,Главни елементи кризе су још на сцени. Док смо крајем деведесетих имали тржиште финансијских 'деривата' од око 80 милијарди долара, до 2008. оно је нарасло на преко 800 билиона, док је целокупни планетарни бруто производ био само 65 билиона, а Америке 15. Одмах после кризе финансијски балон Волстрита је испумпан на око 400 билиона, али се данас вратио на између 700 и 800 билиона", гласи рачуница Тома Хартмана.
У чему је међутим ,,завера"? ,,Оно што се сада догађа већ је виђено у ранијим кризама: у суштини, веома моћни и веома богати настоје да створе једну олигархијску форму владавине, и у многим случајевима у томе успевају.
То је рат богатих против сиромашних и радних људи, средње класе. У овој генерацији предводници тог рата су браћа Дејвид и Чарлс Кок, Шелдон Аделсон (највећи финансијери Републиканске партије), али и други који су много мање видљиви."
Прошле године само на Волстриту било је десет људи који су имали приходе веће од две милијарде долара. Током двадесетих година прошлог века тајкуни су били Дипонтови, Морганови и Рокфелери, а данас су то нова имена, али у суштини иста група.
Њима, образлаже Хартман, кризе погодују: ,,Највећа богатства у Америци у последњих сто година направљена су током 'Велике депресије'. Кризе увек доносе велике прилике да богати постану богатији."
Данас је, каже, модел стицања огромног богатства другачији него некад. Најбогатије адресе у Америци нису више на Беверли хилсу, него у насељима северно од Вашингтона, где су дворци приватних коопераната Пентагона, који је ,,аутсорсовао" велики део буџета, као што су то, чак у износу од 70 одсто, то учиниле и обавештајни комплекс.
,,Данас су не само медији, него и свака иоле значајна индустрија у овој земљи под контролом две, три, четири или највише пет компанија."
,,Због свега овога само још једна велика економска криза може да створи политичку вољу неопходну за фундаменталне промене у нашем економском и политичком систему, да би ова земља поново постала функционална", закључује Хартман.
На крају 40-минутног излагања поздрављен је аплаузом. Читаоци његових књига те вечери у вашингтонској књижари имали су много питања. Нисам сигуран да су били срећни због његових одговора чија се порука своди на оно што данас важи на свим меридијанима: биће горе пре него што буде боље.Милан Мишић   објављено: 15/12/2013

[scallop]

Još malo onog što bi Skalop napisao da smo ga pitali:

Eto, vidiš da znaš, samo još da ti postane jasno.

[Meho Krljic]

Nek sve ide svojim prirodnim tokom   

[Albedo 0]

''Најбогатије адресе у Америци нису више на Беверли хилсу, него у насељима северно од Вашингтона''

adresa je oduvijek bila u Džordžtaunu, šta mislite zašto je Exorcist tamo smješten...

[varvarin]

Ukratko, ništa ovde bez Marksa nema...

[Meho Krljic]

Amerika od prvog Januara ukida i normalne sijalice od 40 i 60 vati (one od 75 i 100 su zabranili već od prvog Januara 2013.) Alternative su skuplje ali u perspektivi ostvaruju značajne uštede.  S druge strane, ima ljudi koji vele da alternative (LED, pre svega ali i fluorescentne i halogene sijalice) naprosto ne daju dobro svetlo, to jest da njihovo svetlo zamara oči itd. Sreća da mi nećemo ući u EU tako brzo pa ćemo imati priliku da vidimo kakva su iskustva EU i SAD sa tim sijalicama...
60- and 40-Watt Bulbs Banned for 2014: What You Need to Know

On Jan. 1, 2014, it will be lights out for standard incandescent 60- and 40-watt light bulbs. In order to comply with efficiency standards outlined in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law by President George Bush in 2007, it will be illegal to manufacture or import them after Dec. 31. But retailers will still be able to sell off any remaining stock. In 2012, all 100-watt bulbs were phased out, and 75-watt bulbs disappeared the following year.More on Yahoo: Three Ways to Save Money on Your Cell Phone Bill
The old incandescent bulbs are highly inefficient — only about 10 percent of their energy output is converted into light; the rest is lost to heat. "Once all of our nation's 4 billion screw-based sockets have an efficient bulb in them, U.S. consumers will save $13 billion and 30 large coal-burning power plants-worth of electricity a year. The savings really add up," Noah Horowitz, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council tells Yahoo Shine. He adds that if you replace an incandescent bulb with a CFL (compact fluorescent light), you'll save about $50 over the course of the bulb's lifetime. LEDs (light-emitting diodes) are pricey up front — they run about $10 per 60-watt equivalent, but over time they offer a savings of $100 to $150 in energy costs. The numbers are compelling, but that doesn't mean that some of us won't mourn the loss of the mellow light emitted by old-fashioned bulbs, especially the 60-watt version, which accounts for about 50 percent of household lighting in the United States.
More on Yahoo: What's the Most Fuel Efficient Airline in America?
Lighting artist and designer Bentley Meeker, who runs a successful lighting design company in New York City, isn't a fan of all of the new, more efficient bulbs. "The soul doesn't connect to LED, it's a visceral reaction," he tells Yahoo Shine. "Until the mid-1850s, the only light that humans were exposed to was daylight and firelight — incandescent bulbs have a color that is similar to firelight." He believes that LEDs and fluorescents can be fatiguing on the eyes and unpleasant to live and work with for long periods of time.
Horowitz argues that the transition to energy efficient bulbs has been smooth and successful and that the technology and choices are continually improving. He says the main reason people aren't happy with some of the new bulbs is that they are choosing the wrong brightness level and/or "flavor" (the color of light the bulb emits).
Here are expert tips to comply with the new law, as well as to balance energy efficiency and cost savings with aesthetics:

   
• Don't inadvertently buy a bulb that's too bright. New bulbs are measured in lumens, not watts, which can be confusing. A 10-watt LED is as bright as a 60-watt incandescent, so if you purchase a 19-watt LED for a small accent light, it will seem glaring. The NRDC has a useful chart showing the light equivalences of various bulbs.

   
• Choose different types of bulbs for different purposes. Meeker uses LEDs and CFLs to light hallways, stairwells, and basements, and for spotlighting objects. For living spaces, he prefers halogen incandescent bulbs. He says they are a great substitute for the old bulbs, especially if you use them on a dimmer.

   
• If you want to use CFLs, choose the right color. Most people prefer the ones labeled "warm." The bulbs that are labeled "daylight" are bluish.

   
• Bring the bulb you want to replace to the store so you can find an equivalent that is the correct size and shape.

   
• The new bulbs don't work in recessed can lighting. You will still need to buy reflector bulbs, which are not subject to the same regulations.

   
• If you have dimmers, chose a halogen incandescent bulb or LED. Most CFLs do not work with dimmer sockets.

   
• Look for the words ENERGY STAR. "CFL and LED bulb quality can vary significantly," says Horowitz. "Be sure to only buy those that have the ENERGY STAR label," which ensures that the product meets the Environmental Protection Agency's strict standards for energy, efficiency, and performance. These bulbs are certified and tested by a third party and will save consumers an average of $6 in electricity costs per year, per bulb.

While Some people are oblivious to lighting, most of us are sensitive to it, so it's worth being thoughtful about your choice of bulbs. Meeker, who has illuminated such venues as the White House Rose Garden and the Burning Man Festival puts it bluntly: "If the lighting sucks, people will be miserable."

[Meho Krljic]

Lessons of Columbine and other school shootings helped in Arapahoe

It has become a tragically familiar scene in American life: law enforcement officers descending on a packed school where a gunman is on the loose. A procession of students, their hands raised, slowly making their way out of the danger zone.
But the handling of Friday's shooting at Arapahoe High School -- just 10 miles from the scene of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting where two students killed 12 classmates and a teacher before fatally shooting themselves -- drew important lessons from the earlier bloodshed.
At Arapahoe High School, where senior Claire Davis, 17, was critically injured before the shooter turned the gun on himself, law enforcement officers responded within minutes and immediately entered the school to confront the gunman rather than surrounding the building, authorities said.
As the sound of shots reverberated through the corridors, teachers immediately followed procedures put in place after Columbine, locking the doors and moving students to the rear of classrooms.
"That's straight out of Columbine," Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a Cleveland-based consulting firm, told CNN Saturday. "The goal is to proceed and neutralize the shooter. Columbine really revolutionized the way law enforcement responds to active shooters."
Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson credited the quick police response time for the fact that student Karl Pierson, the gunman, stopped firing on others and turned his weapon on himself.
In fact, Robinson told reporters Saturday, Pierson killed himself less than 1 minute, 20 seconds after entering the school.
Robinson said a deputy sheriff assigned as a school resource officer and an unarmed security guard immediately closed in on the shooter. "That one minute and 20 seconds, in my mind, is extraordinarily relevant," he said, noting that Pierson was heavily armed, with ammunition, a knife and three explosives.
Authorities knew from research and contact with forensic psychologists that school shooters typically continue firing until confronted by law enforcement, Robinson said.
"We believe that the response from the school resource officer and from the unarmed school security officer was absolutely critical to the fact we did not have additional injury and or death," he said.
Robinson said the so-called active shooter response protocol, which was developed after Columbine, was put into place. In addition, school staff and students implemented a well-rehearsed lockdown practice.
"The combination of quick response by the resource officer and the implementation of a lockdown protocol caused the children and staff to be safe," he said. "Both protocols came together as they were designed to do."
Friday's shooting came on the eve of the one year anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, where Adam Lanza killed 20 first-graders and six adults at the now-demolished elementary school in the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.
Newtown marks anniversary of school killings
"It's very unfortunate that we have to say that there's a textbook response on the way to respond to these, because that textbook was written based on all of the incidents that we've had and the lessons learned," Trump said.
Trump said both Sandy Hook and the latest shooting in Colorado highlight the importance of "training and engaging" school support staff -- from custodians to school secretaries to maintenance and food service workers -- on how to best respond during these incidents. In Sandy Hook, a school custodian's 911 calls provided authorities some of the first information about what was happening.
"Often these people are not getting training in school emergency planning," Trump said. "In a critical incident, they may be the first person to respond."
At Arapahoe High School, a school janitor spotted Pierson, whose intended target was a faculty member, in his tactical gear, he told CNN affiliate KMGH.
"It just looked weird," Fabian Llerenas said. "He went in, and I heard two pops. That's when I knew. I said, 'They are shooting in the school.'"
Llerenas said he called 911 and then escorted the targeted faculty member out of the school.
Pierson had fired at the man but missed, Llerenas told KUSA.
"He was so [shaken] up, he felt the wind hit, out of the shotgun just blew his hair, but it didn't hit him. It was that scary for him," Llerenas said.
"In my opinion, that was the most important tactical decision that could have been made," Robinson said. The faculty member "left that school in an effort to try to encourage the shooter to also leave the school."
Trump said other lessons learned from Columbine included the controlled evacuations and pat-down searches of students in a secure area. Self evacuations can create chaos for the police.
Additionally, schools now have predesignated parent-student "reunification centers" to prevent parents from showing up at the scene and interfering with law enforcement, as was the case in Sandy Hook, Trump said.
"The lessons of Columbine are still the best practices," Trump said.
After Sandy Hook. Trump said, some officials advocated a "run, hide or fight" approach developed for workplace shootings in which teachers and students are encouraged to be prepared to throw things at gunmen. Some even suggested that elementary school students use items such as cans of soup to attack gunmen. Trump called it a "high risk, high liability proposition."
"The good news is that we're getting better at preventing and responding to these incidents," he said. "The bad news is that there will be cases that slip through the cracks."

[Meho Krljic]

Al Džazira prenosi tekst Pola Rozenberga o sličnostima Obame sa JFKom:


Obama-JFK: No end to similarities

The day after the US marked the 50th anniversary of John F Kennedy's assassination, President Barack Obama achieved what could be his most significant foreign policy accomplishment - an interim nuclear weapons deal with Iran. The coincidence of timing reminds us again of the parallels between the two men, and the parallels, in turn, may help us shed light on the differences - differences not just between two individual leaders, but between two different incarnations of what the US means, not just to itself, but, more importantly, to the rest of the world. That, in turn, may lead to plumbing even deeper mysteries.
At his best, Obama promised to be a JFK-like president, inspiring a new generation both at home and abroad, and indeed, support from key members of the Kennedy family played a significant role in Obama's presidential run. Kennedy was the US' first Catholic president; Obama, its first black president. Both built their own outsider networks of political supporters, catching more established candidates by surprise. Both were young senators with meagre legislative records, yet with compelling best-selling books that struck intentionally trans-partisan chords. Kennedy's commitment to civil rights - hobbled though it may have been - clearly connects the two men. So does his role in signing the first major nuclear treaty - the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - as Obama has long been concerned with reducing the nuclear weapons threat.
Same page on military
But there are other, more troubling parallels as well. Most notably, for present purposes, they share an illusory promise of peace, with a similar underlying dynamic. It begins with a shared estrangement from a faltering military establishment, which they then compensate for via a fascination with covert special operations, and the gadgetry that goes with it. This makes them both less visibly hawkish figures, yet it belies the simplistic notion that they are dovish, overly reliant on diplomacy, or overly committed to multi-lateralism.
  In Kennedy's case, it was the elevation and de facto creation of the  Green Berets , the exclusive use of special forces and military advisers in Vietnam, and the use of special forces to train irregular ethnic forces. This was the fore-runner of the strategy that lead the US to help build up the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which in turn, eventually resulted in the Taliban takeover and the their partnership with al-Qaeda. It was, in the long view of history, a profoundly reckless and ill-conceived approach. But at the time, it was genuinely sober, thoughtful and measured, compared to the existing alternatives.
In Obama's case it can be seen in his heavy reliance on drone warfare, his about-face on intrusive surveillance, and his intense prosecution of whistle blowers, as well as the evident disappointment of the US' European allies and the Muslim world, both of which had hoped and expected a much more decisive and fundamental break with the long-war policies of the Bush Administration. These strategies have degraded "core al-Qaeda" as promised, but at the cost of substantially enhancing a broader disaffection with the US, and contributing to a broader range of anti-US hostilities. Most tellingly, the US has not regained the moral high ground it had when attacked on 9/11, the high ground it abandoned when it lashed out indiscriminately against individuals, groups and nations that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Hits and misses
The deeper policy context for Kennedy's mistakes only became fully evident in 2000, with the publication of David Kaiser's American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War. Using newly available archival material, Kaiser argued that Kennedy was responding to Eisenhower-era planning for a conventional land war in Southeast Asia, possibly even a nuclear war. Kennedy's first success lay in avoiding a war in Laos, negotiating for its neutrality instead. Kaiser emphasises how Kennedy repeatedly rejected his advisers' pressure towards an all-out war in Vietnam, but does not reflect on Kennedy's failure to replace those advisers with ones more compatible with his more nuanced views. The hawkish advisory establishment that Kennedy left in place readily convinced Johnson to do what Kennedy had resisted - with the additional motivation of stark political survival, as Johnson saw it.
Johnson's tragically flawed policy further split the Democratic Party - an enduring split that helped gain Obama the nomination as a putative anti-interventionist, a severe misreading of his actual stance, which is far more similar to Kennedy's modestly nuanced liberal hawkishness. Tragically, however, Obama seems to have learned nothing from the failures of Kennedy's approach.
Counterinsurgency failed in Vietnam - a fact that Kennedy could not have known, but that Obama surely should have. Instead, he endorsed a similar strategy in Afghanistan, based on misleading arguments that it had succeeded in Iraq (the so-called "surge"), ignoring the multiple other factors involved, as well as the profound differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, at the same time that Obama seems to have made a major breakthrough with Iran, there is talk of the US keeping troops in Afghanistan for another decade or more.
This one example is part of a broader pattern that historian Mark LeVine highlighted just after the Iran nuclear deal was announced. LeVine concluded that the price of Obama's  breakthrough would be numerous reassurances and concessions to existing allies, "policies hew[ing] to the classic rationality of Realpolitik [that] will give little comfort to the citizens across the region who should expect even less US support for real democratic reforms in the near future."
  Embrace of Realpolitik
This brings us to the unexamined core problem of US foreign policy from the Cold War era, which has remained to this day - the relationship of the US' progressive democratic ideals to its de facto embrace of Realpolitik. As Efstathios Fakiolas described in " Kennan's Long Telegram and NSC-68: A Comparative Analysis ", two very different conceptions, by George Kennan and Paul Nitze, existed as to how the US should respond to the Soviet Union. He also explained how both conceptions were based on a Realpolitik approach, but with different models of what constitutes the bedrock reality of international relations. As I explained in 2005:
"While superficially similar - both warn against the threat of Soviet militarism - the two documents differ sharply in their conception of the nature of the Cold War struggle. NSC-68 sees it primarily as a military contest between two self-interested superpowers. The 'Long Telegram' sees it in terms of moral communities: we will win in the long run by being true to our values, and creating a global moral order that the Soviets will ultimately want to be a part of."
Although the US and the West did not intentionally fight Kennan's war, it nonetheless won it accidentally, in spite of itself, more through the actions of its spirited - even rebellious - citizens than through the actions of state. But things are not going nearly as well in the "war on terror", where the same logic applies, but only al-Qaedaseems to realise it's engaged in a war of ideas. What's more, they've used that realisation again and again, to bait the US into self-defeating behaviour.
Rethinking war
Kennedy had a smarter way of fighting the same global war as Eisenhower's advisers - "a military contest between two self-interested superpowers". Similarly, Obama has a smarter way of fighting the same global war as Bush's advisers - a full-spectrum military contest between the only global superpower and a shadowy network of "others". Both men abandoned proven losing strategies - but for what alternatives? A smarter way of fighting the wrong war is not enough to win the right one.
Paul Rosenberg is the senior editor of Random Lengths News, a bi-weekly alternative community newspaper.

[Meho Krljic]

Razjareni libertarijanac želi da Kaliforniju podeli na šest manjih država gde bi silikonska dolina konačno mogla da bude svoja na svome, slobodna od jarma zakona i poreza. No, tekst je interesantan jer postavlja pitanje da li u ovom trenutku predstavnička demokratija u Americi predstavlja građane dovoljno dobro ili makar dovoljno podjednako:



A Tech Tycoon Wants to Split California Into Six States Because Democracy

Sure, Tim Draper's plan to slice up the Golden State is ridiculous. The wealthy venture capitalist has drafted a ballot initiative to split California into six separate states, he told Tech Crunch, with Silicon Valley emerging as the richest and most powerful of all. The mockery is already pouring in.
Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of California 1.0. Of course a deep undercurrent of self-aggrandizing narcissism runs through the proposal—only one other state-to-be gets an actual name, ("Jefferson," which is already the moniker of an ongoing secessionist movement) and the rest are lazily affixed with topographical descriptors: West, South, Central, and North California. Of course the plan is overrun with libertarian-tinged ideology and language—an explicit goal is to "lessen the role of Sacramento over every aspect of our lives." Starting to sound familiar?




Yes, in shaping his doctrine, Draper has conjured the perfect blend of Seasteading's offshore tech nirvana lawlessness, boilerplate Tea Party antiestablishmentarianism, and good ol' secessionist chutzpah.
But here's the thing: Underneath all that Silicon Valley techno-centrism, he's got a point. Though he's probably proposing it for all the wrong reasons, Draper's terrible plan is premised on a totally salient criticism—it's absurd that California only sends two senators to Washington when it is by far the country's most populous state.
Though it's not mentioned outright in the ballot proposal text, he tells Tech Crunch that the number one reason he wants to slice up California is that "It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in Washington."
It's hard to argue with that. Small and sparsely populated states get an absurd advantage when it comes to representation in one of the nation's two legislative chambers. You might have heard it put this way before: a Wyoming voter gets 68 times more representation in the Senate than a Californian. California is home to 38 million people. Wyoming has some 575,000 residents. Yet both states send two senators to Washington, whose votes each count equally. Which isn't ideal if you're aiming for a democracy.
Draper says his plan would smooth that out, and help California voters get the voice they deserve.
"Now our number of Senators per person will be about average," he says. Which, well, kind of: One of the states would have less than 1 million people, and another would have 12 million. That's still a pretty big gulf, and adds credence to the idea that the 'Six Californias' proposal is based less on a desire for equal Senatorial influence and more on getting Silicon Valley it's own government (the better to de-regulate with). But at least it would get millions of people vastly improved representation on a federal level.
Regardless, this is a pretty silly way to address the issue—it's unlikely to pass at the ballot box, for one thing. Who wants their state hacked and divvied up according to the whims of some mega-rich tech tycoon? Second, the federal government would have to approve the whole mess, which it isn't going to.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Senate could probably use reforming—it's not a democratic institution now, and it never really has been. (When it was first formed, the most populous state was 12 times more peopled than the least, which is somewhat better than 68 times, but still.) Right now, half the nation's population lives in just 9 states. Simply by living in those states, they're less represented in the system—if you really want your vote to count, move to Vermont, Wyoming, or North Dakota.
The founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and James Madison both vehemently protested the two-senators-per-state system, and were in favor of "proportional representation" instead. There are about a million better ways to do it, but Draper's slipshod plan would actually be a step towards that goal—and towards a government that ceases to favor the concerns of rural voters over the urban ones.


Six Californias Proposal

[scallop]

Prvo, Silicijumska dolina, je bila Praznina dok Kalifornija i SAD nisu uložile u nju. Drugo, nedavno smo videli kako bi bila podeljena vlast u SAD da glasaju samo muškarci. Treće, stalno ovde napominjemo da je briga o manjinama najveće pravo većine. O šušama u politici nikad ništa dobro.

[Meho Krljic]

Da, silicijumska, navukle me životinje da iskvarim svoj sopstveni govor.

Apropo ovog dalje u tekstu, da činjenica da male i velike države u Americi daju isti broj senatora pa da time ako živiš u većoj državi zapravo bivaš manje predstavljen, to je nešto gde bi bilo zanimljivo raspravljati. Koliko ja shvatam ulogu senata, ona je u originalnoj postavci bila baš u tome da se napravi ravnoteža sa drugim delom Kongresa, House of Representatives, gde su države zastupljene proporcionalno stanovništvu. Dakle, HoR je, ugrubo, predstavljanje građana po proporciji, gde većina uvek preteže, a Senat je balans u kome se između ostalog štiti manjina i savezne države prepoznaju kao nosioci suvereniteta itd.

[scallop]

Ako žele da budu bolje predstavljeni neka idu u Vajoming, Montanu ili Severnu Dakotu. A što se tiče Senat/Kongres ustrojstva, to liči na kopiju britanskog.

[Meho Krljic]

Pa,da, ta dvodomna struktura je i u Britaniji, a verujem i u popriličnom broju drugih država. I mi smo u SFRJ imali dvodomnu i višedomnu strukturu... evo, baš gledam, kod nas je to bilo jako komplikovano:

Do 1953. godine, Narodna skupština je bila jednodomna. Od 1953. do 1963, imala je dva doma: Republičko veće i Veće proizvođača; od 1963. do 1974, činilo ju je pet domova: Republičko veće, Privredno veće, Prosvetno-kulturno veće, Socijalno-zdravstveno veće i Organizaciono-političko veće; od 1974. do 1990. godine bila je trodomna sa sledećim većima: Veće udruženog rada, Veće opština i Društveno-političko veće. Od januara 1991, ponovo je jednodomna.

[Meho Krljic]

Verovatno najgluplja javna kontroverza u Americi ne jenjava: rednek iz Luizijane koji ima jedan od najgledanijih rijaliti šoova u Americi - u kome kamere prate njega & njegovu rednek familiju po vazdan - je u intervjuu za GQ izjavio da je homoseksualnost grijeh i da ovaj grijeh vodi u druge grijehove i sad je to kraj sveta, te biće suspendovan iz šoa, te neće jer je njegova porodica zapretila da ako nema njega onda nema ni šoa, te prodavnice uklanjaju određene proizvode iz ponude u znak solidarnosti sa gej populacijom te ih vraćaju u promet kad se narod pobuni i svrsta uz redneka, te Čarli Šin krene da preti po tviteru... Čak su i zvaničnici Luizijane rekli da ako se produkcija šoa prekine na trenutnoj mreži koja ga finansira, država će da uleti da se to nastavi... Lud'lo.


Phil Speaks! Charlie Sheen Rants! Networks Scramble! 7 Biggest New Developments In 'Duck Dynasty' Drama

Seeing as we've entered the final holiday shopping days (and panic mode), it's understandable that you may not be up-to-speed on the latest developments in the "Duck Dynasty" saga. So we've created this handy little list to fill you in.
1. Late last week, "omg! Insider" obtained footage of a church sermon that (depending on your side of the hullabaloo) provided further evidence of either Phil Robertson's homophobia or his Bible-sanctioned views. In the clip, the patriarch declares that there is a "lack of morality in America."
According to Phil, this lack of morality is proven by the fact that people "bow down to birds, animals, and reptiles, and each other." We're not exactly sure what he means by that, but he goes on to add that "the first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality. They will dishonor their bodies with one another, degrade each other. ... Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions."

[Related: How 'Duck Dynasty' Will Survive (and Thrive) Post-Phil Robertson Scandal]

2. After his family bonded together and threatened to pull the plug on their A&E show if Phil remains banished, the head Duck Commander himself spoke out for the first time since his quotes to GQ about homosexuality sparked a firestorm — and he's standing by his statements.
"I will not give or back off from my path because you conquered death, Father, so we are not worried about all the repercussions," the reality TV star declared while leading a Bible study group in Louisiana on Sunday, according to the U.K.'s Daily Mail, which had special access to the session. He also added, however, "I love all men and women. I am a lover of humanity, not a hater."
"Sexual sins are numerous and many — I have a few myself," he admitted. "So what is your safest course of action? If you're a man, find yourself a woman, marry them, and keep your sex right there."


3. Louisiana's lieutenant governor expressed his support for Robertson and vowed to help protect the future of the show.
"I'm sure a lot of people found the comments offensive. There's no question about that," Jay Dardenne declared. "The point is, he has an opinion and has a set of beliefs and is entitled to those without jeopardizing what has become an extremely popular show across America." In fact, he offered to connect the Robertsons with his own personal TV industry contacts if they reach a stalemate with A&E.
"If the Robertson family cannot come to an agreement with A&E and wants to continue the show, Louisiana already has the infrastructure in place to maintain their record-breaking program," he shared while quickly noting that he would use his own Rolodex, rather than state-funded efforts, to assist.
It's also worth noting that the IStandWithPhil.com petition has now garnered over 195,000 signatures — just 5,000 short of its 200,000 goal.

[Related: Battle Lines Are Being Drawn Over 'Duck Dynasty' Dad's Suspension]

4. On Saturday, Cracker Barrel pulled "Duck Dynasty" products from its shelves — and on Sunday, the comfort food chain put them back.
"When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers," a statement explained. "You told us we made a mistake... You wrote, you called, and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat-out told us we were wrong. We listened. Today, we are putting all our 'Duck Dynasty' products back in our stores. And we apologize for offending you."

[Related: How 'Duck Dynasty' Became Such a Huge Hit]

5. But Cracker Barrel customers weren't the only ones expressing their outrage. Charlie Sheen took to Twitter to bash Phil Robertson.
"hey Mallard brained Phil Robertso [sic]! you have offended and hurt so many dear friends of mine, who DO NOT have the voice or the outreach that I do," he wrote. "Your statements were and are abhorrently and mendaciously unforgivable. The idea that you have a job outside of dirt-clod stacking is a miracle. The only 'Dynasty' you are attached to might be the re-runs of that dated show."
He later followed this up with a few more thoughts.
6. In the midst of all this, still others weighed in.
Mike Kellett, the pastor at Phil Robertson's church (who has reportedly been praying alongside the family since its patriarch was suspended from filming), stated that Phil has known gay people through this congregation. "We've had people here before that struggle with that sin. He knows them," Kellett shared. "It's not a negative thing."
And potential 2016 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee seized the moment to use Robertson's statements to remind voters that Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back in 2008, but has since flip-flopped in his stance.
7. Last but not least, as days go by without a definitive agreement between the Robertsons and A&E, other (much smaller) TV networks have begun to circle the powerful franchise.
Among those throwing their hats into the proverbial ring include the Christian-affiliated Hunt Channel, owned by a man named Merrill Sport, and the outdoorsy Pursuit Channel, run by CEO Rusty Faulk. We'll have to wait and see how this all shakes down, but we can't help but note that the battle for "Duck Dynasty" between Merrill and Rusty could be as exciting as the show itself.
In conclusion, nothing has been resolved between the family and the network, but lines are continuing to be drawn... and clarified... and redrawn.

[Father Jape]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/24/chicago-area-library-rejects-3000-donation-from-atheist-blogger-because-he-is-a-hate-group/

[Tex Murphy]

Честитке и подршка Филу Робертсону због непопуштања ретардираним либералима као што је Чарли Шин. А та дебилна наркоманска глуперда може да скочи у језеро.

[Meho Krljic]

U sovjetskoj Americi (i, sve više, ostatku sveta), knjige čitaju vas:

As New Services Track Habits, the E-Books Are Reading You

SAN FRANCISCO — Before the Internet, books were written — and published — blindly, hopefully. Sometimes they sold, usually they did not, but no one had a clue what readers did when they opened them up. Did they skip or skim? Slow down or speed up when the end was in sight? Linger over the sex scenes?


  A wave of start-ups is using technology to answer these questions — and help writers give readers more of what they want. The companies get reading data from subscribers who, for a flat monthly fee, buy access to an array of titles, which they can read on a variety of devices. The idea is to do for books what Netflix did for movies and Spotify for music.       
"Self-published writers are going to eat this up," said Mark Coker, the chief executive of Smashwords, a large independent publisher. "Many seem to value their books more than their kids. They want anything that might help them reach more readers."       
Last week, Smashwords made a deal to put 225,000 books on Scribd, a digital library here that unveiled a reading subscription service in October. Many of Smashwords' books are already on Oyster, a New York-based subscription start-up that also began in the fall.       
The move to exploit reading data is one aspect of how consumer analytics is making its way into every corner of the culture. Amazon and Barnes & Noble already collect vast amounts of information from their e-readers but keep it proprietary. Now the start-ups — which also include Entitle, a North Carolina-based company — are hoping to profit by telling all.       
"We're going to be pretty open about sharing this data so people can use it to publish better books," said Trip Adler, Scribd's chief executive.
Quinn Loftis, a writer of young adult paranormal romances who lives in western Arkansas, interacts extensively with her fans on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, Goodreads, YouTube, Flickr and her own website. These efforts at community, most of which did not exist a decade ago, have already given the 33-year-old a six-figure annual income. But having actual data about how her books are being read would take her market research to the ultimate level.       
"What writer would pass up the opportunity to peer into the reader's mind?" she asked.       
Scribd is just beginning to analyze the data from its subscribers. Some general insights: The longer a mystery novel is, the more likely readers are to jump to the end to see who done it. People are more likely to finish biographies than business titles, but a chapter of a yoga book is all they need. They speed through romances faster than religious titles, and erotica fastest of all.       
At Oyster, a top book is "What Women Want," promoted as a work that "brings you inside a woman's head so you can learn how to blow her mind." Everyone who starts it finishes it. On the other hand, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Cycles of American History" blows no minds: fewer than 1 percent of the readers who start it get to the end.       
Oyster data shows that readers are 25 percent more likely to finish books that are broken up into shorter chapters. That is an inevitable consequence of people reading in short sessions during the day on an iPhone.       
A few writers might be repelled by too much knowledge. But others would be fascinated, as long as they retained control.       
"Would we provide this data to an author? Absolutely," said Chantal Restivo-Alessi, chief digital officer for HarperCollins Publishers. "But it is up to him how to write the book. The creative process is a mysterious process."       
The services say they will make the data anonymous so readers will not be identified. The privacy policies however are broad. "You are consenting to the collection, transfer, manipulation, storage, disclosure and other uses of your information," Oyster tells new customers.       
Before writers will broadly be able to use any data, the services must become viable by making deals with publishers to supply the books. Publishers, however, are suspicious of yet another disruption to their business. HarperCollins has signed up with Oyster and Scribd, but Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster have thus far stayed away.
Some agents, too, are wary.       
"It's hard to tell authors that it's worth starting a new relationship with any of these new services," said Ted Weinstein, an agent in San Francisco. "It is literally an unsustainable business model."       
Here is how Scribd and Oyster work: Readers pay about $10 a month for a library of about 100,000 books from traditional presses. They can read as many books as they want.       
"We love big readers," said Eric Stromberg, Oyster's chief executive. But Oyster, whose management includes two ex-Google engineers, cannot afford too many of them.       
This could be called the Sizzler problem. In the 1990s, the steak restaurant chain tried to beef up sales with an all-you-can-eat salad bar, which got bigger as it got more popular. But as more hungry customers came, the chain was forced to lower quality, which caused customers to flee, which resulted in bankruptcy.       
"Sure, if you had a buffet and everyone ate everything, it wouldn't be a profitable business," said Mr. Adler of Scribd. "But generally people only eat so much." Only 2 percent of Scribd's subscribers read more than 10 books a month, he said.       
These start-ups are being forced to define something that only academic theoreticians and high school English teachers used to wonder about: How much reading does it take to read a book? Because that is when the publisher, and the writer, get paid.       
The companies declined to outline their business model, but publishers said Scribd and Oyster offered slightly different deals. On Oyster, once a person reads more than 10 percent of the book, it is officially considered "read." Oyster then has to pay the publisher a standard wholesale fee. With Scribd, it is more complicated. If the reader reads more than 10 percent but less than 50 percent, it counts for a tenth of a sale. Above 50 percent, it is a full sale.       
Both services say the response has been enthusiastic, but neither provided precise numbers.       
Looming over these start-ups is Amazon, which has already dabbled in the subscription area. Kindle owners who are members of Amazon's $79 annual Prime shipping service are eligible to borrow from a library of 350,000 titles. The program has had limited impact because users can borrow only one book at a time, and it offers few best-sellers.       
Amazon may have bigger ambitions. Publishers say the retailer has been quietly asking them about how the new all-you-can-read services work, leading to industry speculation it will set up a rival plan. An Amazon spokesman declined to comment.       
Scribd, which has received more than $25 million in venture funding, began as a site for posting documents, including pirated books. Offering a subscription service, said Jared Friedman, Scribd's chief technology officer, "introduces a sort of interesting business opportunity to collaborate with publishers rather than be at odds with them."       
He contrasted two romance novels. One had few Amazon reviews and little promotion, but Scribd's data showed 6 out of 10 readers were finishing it — above average for the genre. Another romance had hundreds of reviews on Amazon, but only about 4 out of 10 readers bothered to finish it. They began closing the book, the data showed, when the writer plunged deeper into fantasy. Maybe this was not a good idea.       
Some writers, of course, might not be receptive to hearing this.       
"If you aren't careful, you could narrow your creativity. You won't take risks," said Ms. Loftis, the young adult novelist. "But the bigger risk is not giving the reader what she wants. I'll take all the data I can get."       
         A version of this article appears in print on December 25, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: As New Services Track Habits, the E-Books Are Reading You.   

Ohrabrujuće je makar videti da čitaoci Njujork Tajmza u komentarima redom sipaju žuč i prezir po ovoj praksi... Evo jednog lepog komentara

Imagine how learning all this information could have helped Franz Kafka, Virginia Woolf and Ralph Ellison write better books.

[Meho Krljic]

Da se notira da američki sud potvrđuje da je pretraživanje i kopiranje čitavog vašeg laptopa na granici, a bez suckog naloga, pa čak i bez "opravdane sumnje" zakonit i bogougodan postupak. Boldovao sam posebno ciničan deo na kraju:


Court Rules No Suspicion Needed for Laptop Searches at Border

Decision Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Challenging DHS Search Policy as Unconstitutional
December 31, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
BROOKLYN – A federal court today dismissed a lawsuit arguing that the government should not be able to search and copy people's laptops, cell phones, and other devices at border checkpoints without reasonable suspicion. An appeal is being considered. Government documents show that thousands of innocent American citizens are searched when they return from trips abroad.
"We're disappointed in today's decision, which allows the government to conduct intrusive searches of Americans' laptops and other electronics at the border without any suspicion that those devices contain evidence of wrongdoing," said Catherine Crump, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued the case in July 2011. "Suspicionless searches of devices containing vast amounts of personal information cannot meet the standard set by the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight."
The ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed the lawsuit in September 2010 against the Department of Homeland Security. DHS asserts the right to look though the contents of a traveler's electronic devices, and to keep the devices or copy the contents in order to continue searching them once the traveler has been allowed to enter the U.S., regardless of whether the traveler is suspected of any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Pascal Abidor, a dual French-American citizen who had his laptop searched and confiscated at the Canadian border; the National Press Photographers Association, whose members include television and still photographers, editors, students and representatives of the photojournalism industry; and the NACDL, which has attorney members in 25 countries.
Abidor was travelling from Montreal to New York on an Amtrak train in May 2010 when he had his laptop searched and confiscated by customs officers. Abidor, an Islamic Studies Ph.D. student at McGill University, was questioned, taken off the train in handcuffs, and held in a cell for several hours before being released without charge. When his laptop was returned 11 days later, there was evidence that many of his personal files had been searched, including photos and chats with his girlfriend.
In June, in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request, DHS released its December 2011 Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Impact Assessment of its electronics search policy, concluding that suspicionless searches do not violate the First or Fourth Amendments. The report said that a reasonable suspicion standard is inadvisable because it could lead to litigation and the forced divulgence of national security information, and would prevent border officers from acting on inchoate "hunches," a method that it says has sometimes proved fruitful.
Today's ruling is available at:
aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/abidor_decision.pdf
 

[Meho Krljic]

Ovaj američki precednik ne samo što je komunista koji urušava naciju slobodnih preduzetnika svojim komunističkim idejama o komunizmu, nego sad i tvrdi da  "marihuana nije ništa gora od rakije". Pa šta je sledeće?? Prodaja američke dece u pornografsko ropstvo u komunističku Rusiju?



Obama on pot: 'I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol'

President Barack Obama says he views marijuana as a "bad habit" and "a vice," but no more dangerous than alcohol.


"As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life," Obama told The New Yorker's David Remnick. "I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol."
The president acknowledged marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer."
"It's not something I encourage," Obama continued, "and I've told my daughters I think it's a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy."
Still, he said, "we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing."
On the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington, Obama said, "it's important for it to go forward because it's important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished."


Obama's support of legalization was welcomed by pot advocates.
"The first step to improving our nation's marijuana policy is admitting that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol," Mason Tvert, director of the Marijuana Policy Project, said in a statement. "Now that he has recognized that laws jailing adults for using marijuana are inappropriate, it is time to amend for those errors and adopt a more fact-based marijuana policy.
But the president also said legalization is a slippery slope:

"When it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We've got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn't going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?"

His comments were part of a lengthy, wide-ranging profile published online Sunday. Some other notable quotes from the piece:
· Obama doesn't have a son. But if he did, he "would not let my son play pro football." He then compared concussion-prone football players to boxers and smokers: They all know the dangers. "At this point, there's a little bit of caveat emptor," Obama said. "These guys, they know what they're doing. They know what they're buying into. It is no longer a secret. It's sort of the feeling I have about smokers."
· Obama on losing some older white voters in the 2012 election: "There's no doubt that there's some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black president. Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I'm a black president."
· His 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston put him on the map, politically, but critics say its theme — about Washington rising above partisan politics — was a fantasy. "My speech in Boston was an aspirational speech," Obama countered. "It was not a description of our politics. It was a description of what I saw in the American people."
· The president says he doesn't watch "Meet The Press," "Reliable Sources" or any of the Sunday political talk shows, for that matter. "I don't watch Sunday-morning shows," Obama said. "That's been a well-established rule." He usually spends them with his family or plays basketball.
· Obama on the expectations of the office during a second term: "The conventional wisdom is that a President's second term is a matter of minimizing the damage and playing defense rather than playing offense. But, as I've reminded my team, the day after I was inaugurated for a second term, we're in charge of the largest organization on earth, and our capacity to do some good, both domestically and around the world, is unsurpassed, even if nobody is paying attention."

[Meho Krljic]

The Register analizira i prevodi Obamin govor od pre neki dan koji se zaklinjao da će smanjiti špijunažu nad sopstvenim građanima:
Those NSA 'reforms' in full: El Reg translates US Prez Obama's pledges

[Meho Krljic]

Ahahah, ovo ko iz neke priče Harlana Elisona:

Dve lezbijke preko krejgslista (dakle, sajta za lične oglase) tražile donatora sperme da bi imale dete. Čovek se javio, potpisao s njima ugovor kojim se odrekao ikakvog prava na očinstvo, dao šta treba. Žena rodila, no, izgleda da ekonomski nije bila baš u najboljijoj situaciji jer je primala pomoć od države. Sad država juri donatora sperme da joj refundira tu pomoć i da nastavi da plaća alimentaciju iako on ženu nije ni vido. Jasno je da su ovde zakoni pisani da pameti privedu neodgovorne očeve naletele na neočekivan slučaj...

U.S. Sperm Donor Told to Pay Child Support

What began with a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple calling for a sperm donor in rural Topeka, Kansas ended in court on Wednesday with a judge ordering the donor to pay child support.

William Marotta claims to have waived his rights as a parent during the process, but Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi maintained that the parties did not enlist a licensed physician, which nullifies his claim to being a sperm donor.

"In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process," Mattivi wrote in her decision, according to AP.

The case to have Marotta declared the father was filed by Kansas Department for Children and Families in October 2012. He could now effectively be held responsible for around $6,000 in assistance already provided by the state along with future child support payments.

Marotta's attorney slammed the judge's decision and claimed the state was "vilifying" his client.

[AP]

Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn't entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law.

"Kansas law is clear that a 'donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman,' " Mattivi wrote.

"In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to conform to the statutory requirements of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental rights and responsibilities" to the child, the judge concluded.

Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter. The girl is 4 years old.

The requirement to include a licensed physician in the artificial insemination dates to 1973 when the Uniform Parentage Act came into being and was adopted by Kansas, Mattivi said.

The judge noted it is "uncontroverted" that the semen in this case wasn't provided to a licensed physician.

"Accordingly, the statute as written does not afford (Marotta) the bar to paternity that he seeks," she wrote.

The Marotta decision "appears" to be a case of first impression in Kansas, the judge said. That means a specific issue in the ruling hasn't been dealt with before in that court, and there isn't binding authority on the matter.

In a similar case in 1986 in California, a court ruled that a man seeking to be involved in a child's upbringing was the father, not just a sperm donor, because the parties didn't use a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process.

Both sides asked Mattivi to issue a summary judgment in their favor. A summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial.

Benoit Swinnen, an attorney representing Marotta, said he was "disappointed" but "not totally surprised" by the decision. As of Wednesday afternoon, Swinnen said he didn't know his client's reaction because he hadn't yet been able to speak with him.

Swinnen said he "absolutely" would appeal the case if that is Marotta's intention.

Phyllis Gilmore, secretary of the Kansas Department for Children and Families, in a written statement Wednesday said that state law clearly states that people must go through a licensed physician to avoid financial responsibilities of parenthood.

"We appreciate the judge's careful consideration and attention to the law," Gilmore said.

During oral arguments, Mattivi heard from Timothy Keck, co-lead counsel for the state; Swinnen; Jill Dykes, guardian ad litem for the child; and Jennifer Berger, attorney representing the child's mother, Jennifer Schreiner.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a girl Schreiner bore in 2009. 

Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn't intend to be the child's father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her partner. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.

During closing arguments Oct. 25, Keck said the case focused on child support. Swinnen countered by citing several court rulings he said support the argument Marotta was legally a sperm donor and not required to pay child support.

Swinnen contested the Kansas statute, saying it didn't specifically direct that the artificial insemination must be carried out by a physician.

The state has been seeking to have Marotta declared the child's father so he can be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

The documents show Schreiner indicated she didn't know the name of the donor or "have any information" about him in her application for child support. But a sperm donor contract between Marotta and the couple includes his name, and the agency noted the couple talked about their appreciation for him in an interview with The Topeka Capital-Journal.