The House passed a resolution to fund the government and defund The Affordable Health Care Act.
After
the Senate turns it down, the bill goes back to the House.
Can John Boehner
convince his caucus not to hold the government hostage to what’s become their
only issue?
NBC White House Correspondent Kristen Wekler reports on President
Obama’s call to John Boehner.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Rep. Luke Messer,
R-Ind., talk about the situation with MSNBC’s Karen Finney.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Defund the Affordable Health Care Act? This is like the Civil War
By Morgan Whitaker
With Friday’s vote, the Republican party moved one step closer towards their goal of stopping President Obama’s healthcare reform law from going into effect, an effort that could very well lead to a government shutdown. Sadly, after the political battles of the last few years, the threat of a government shutdown is no longer unique.
Whether they are bargaining for spending cuts, or in this case, pushing back against a law they openly oppose, the debt ceiling has become a negotiating tool.
But when Rev. Sharpton asked one of his favorite professors, Melissa Harris-Perry, to put the current debate into historical context, she argued that it’s the worst intransigence we’ve seen since the Civil War.
“Of course we’ve seen this before, and the last time that we saw this, this level of dysfunction, this level of unwillingness to implement the laws of the land, it led to the Civil War,” she said.
“Now, I don’t think that we are on the brink of a civil war,” she added. “But the kind of behavior that we are seeing here, where a set of states and individual congresspersons have such an ideological disagreement with the fundamental laws of the nation that they are willing literally to secede from those laws, to not implement them, to not be part of them. Yes, we’ve seen this before and it nearly destroyed us.”
While the House and Senate still has a little over a week to come to an agreement to keep the lights on in Washington, President Obama showed no signs of backing down from the battle.
According to House Speaker John Boehner’s office, the President reached out to the speaker late Friday to tell him he had no plans to negotiate.
“The President called the speaker this evening to tell him he wouldn’t negotiate with him on the debt limit,” Press Secretary Brendan Buck told NBC News. “Given the long history of using debt limit increases to achieve bipartisan deficit reduction and economic reforms, the speaker was disappointed but told the President that the two chambers of Congress will chart the path ahead. It was a brief call.”
With Friday’s vote, the Republican party moved one step closer towards their goal of stopping President Obama’s healthcare reform law from going into effect, an effort that could very well lead to a government shutdown. Sadly, after the political battles of the last few years, the threat of a government shutdown is no longer unique.
Whether they are bargaining for spending cuts, or in this case, pushing back against a law they openly oppose, the debt ceiling has become a negotiating tool.
But when Rev. Sharpton asked one of his favorite professors, Melissa Harris-Perry, to put the current debate into historical context, she argued that it’s the worst intransigence we’ve seen since the Civil War.
“Of course we’ve seen this before, and the last time that we saw this, this level of dysfunction, this level of unwillingness to implement the laws of the land, it led to the Civil War,” she said.
“Now, I don’t think that we are on the brink of a civil war,” she added. “But the kind of behavior that we are seeing here, where a set of states and individual congresspersons have such an ideological disagreement with the fundamental laws of the nation that they are willing literally to secede from those laws, to not implement them, to not be part of them. Yes, we’ve seen this before and it nearly destroyed us.”
While the House and Senate still has a little over a week to come to an agreement to keep the lights on in Washington, President Obama showed no signs of backing down from the battle.
According to House Speaker John Boehner’s office, the President reached out to the speaker late Friday to tell him he had no plans to negotiate.
“The President called the speaker this evening to tell him he wouldn’t negotiate with him on the debt limit,” Press Secretary Brendan Buck told NBC News. “Given the long history of using debt limit increases to achieve bipartisan deficit reduction and economic reforms, the speaker was disappointed but told the President that the two chambers of Congress will chart the path ahead. It was a brief call.”
Friday, September 20, 2013
Republicans vote to slash food stamps
By Morgan Whitaker
Conservative Republicans in the House passed a bill that will cut $39 billion from food stamps over the next decade, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
Passed in a 217 to 210 vote, the bill–supported only by Republicans–amends the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) with an number of new provisions expected to knock nearly 4 million people out of the program in 2014, and an average of nearly 3 million people each year through 2023.
This is the second version of the food stamps bill pushed by House Republicans this year, after an earlier plan to cut $20.5 billion failed to pass the House–in part because many conservative Republicans believed the cuts were insufficient.
This version of the legislation, split off from the rest of the farm bill after the plan to cut $20.5 billion was rejected, creates new provisions that nearly double cuts, primarily by imposing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents between the age of 18 and 50, limiting them to three months of benefits in a three-year period unless they work part-time, or are in a job-training program. Currently, those recipients can obtain waivers during times of high unemployment.
According to analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the bill allows states to cut people out of the program “even if they are actively looking for work, even if they’re on a waiting list for job training, and even if they’re working, but for less than 20 hours a week while they try to find a full-time job.”
According to CBO estimates, that provision alone will drop 1.7 million people out of the program in 2014, and an average of 1 million people each year over the next decade. Another provision restricting eligibility requirements could cut an average of 1.8 million people a year over the next decade.
The CBO also estimates that 12 million people will “naturally” leave the food stamps program over the next decade as the economy improves, without any legislative changes to the program.
Like many bills championed by the most conservative members of the House, the bill has little chance of making it through the Senate in its current form. The Senate’s version of the bill cuts only $4 billion from the food stamp program. Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, slammed the House’s bill in a statement released shortly after the vote.
“We have never before seen this kind of partisanship injected into a Farm Bill,” she said in a statement. “Not only does this House bill represent a shameful attempt to kick millions of families in need off of food assistance, it’s also a monumental waste of time. The bill will never pass the Senate, and will never be signed by the President.”
But she indicated she was hopeful that a reasonable solution could be found when House and Senate conferees come together to resolve their respective bills.
“The good news is now that this vote is behind us, we are close to the finish line. If House Republican leaders drop the divisive issues, appoint conferees and work with us in a bipartisan way, we can finalize a farm bill that creates jobs, reforms agriculture policy, and reduces the deficit by tens of billions of dollars. It’s time to get a comprehensive farm bill done to give farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to continue growing the economy.”
Ultimately 15 Republicans joined Republicans to oppose the bill, including Rep. Peter King of New York, who told reporters Wednesday he thought it went too far.
“It’s just too much, too quick, and we can’t be talking about possibly shutting the government down at the same time we’re cutting food stamps. We have to do one thing at a time,” he said.
Alaska’s Don Young voted against the cuts as well, which he defended in a statement released shortly after the vote.
“These proposed cuts would result in approximately 10,000 Alaskans losing SNAP support and harm food security for families throughout the state, particularly in rural areas. In fact, many Alaskans use SNAP to supplement their subsistence hunting and fishing,” Young said. “Isolated villages in Alaska face unique and burdensome economic barriers, and SNAP often provides a critical lifeline for residents. While I agree with many of my colleagues that we should continue to improve SNAP, making such drastic reductions in funding is not the best way forward.”
Were it to somehow make its way out of the Senate, the bill already faces a veto threat from the White House.
The bill has also drawn the ire of religious communities, including Sister Simone Campbell of the Catholic social justice group, NETWORK, and the Circle of Protection, a coalition of more than 65 heads of evangelical and Catholic leaders.
Conservative Republicans in the House passed a bill that will cut $39 billion from food stamps over the next decade, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
Passed in a 217 to 210 vote, the bill–supported only by Republicans–amends the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) with an number of new provisions expected to knock nearly 4 million people out of the program in 2014, and an average of nearly 3 million people each year through 2023.
This is the second version of the food stamps bill pushed by House Republicans this year, after an earlier plan to cut $20.5 billion failed to pass the House–in part because many conservative Republicans believed the cuts were insufficient.
This version of the legislation, split off from the rest of the farm bill after the plan to cut $20.5 billion was rejected, creates new provisions that nearly double cuts, primarily by imposing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents between the age of 18 and 50, limiting them to three months of benefits in a three-year period unless they work part-time, or are in a job-training program. Currently, those recipients can obtain waivers during times of high unemployment.
According to analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the bill allows states to cut people out of the program “even if they are actively looking for work, even if they’re on a waiting list for job training, and even if they’re working, but for less than 20 hours a week while they try to find a full-time job.”
According to CBO estimates, that provision alone will drop 1.7 million people out of the program in 2014, and an average of 1 million people each year over the next decade. Another provision restricting eligibility requirements could cut an average of 1.8 million people a year over the next decade.
The CBO also estimates that 12 million people will “naturally” leave the food stamps program over the next decade as the economy improves, without any legislative changes to the program.
SNAP benefits primarily go to households with children, the elderly, and
the disabled, who make up 76% of those in the program as of 2011. Of those who
can work, 58% do. The
new legislation could also cut off support to 170,000 of the nearly 1 million
military veterans who receive SNAP benefits each month, according
to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Like many bills championed by the most conservative members of the House, the bill has little chance of making it through the Senate in its current form. The Senate’s version of the bill cuts only $4 billion from the food stamp program. Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, slammed the House’s bill in a statement released shortly after the vote.
“We have never before seen this kind of partisanship injected into a Farm Bill,” she said in a statement. “Not only does this House bill represent a shameful attempt to kick millions of families in need off of food assistance, it’s also a monumental waste of time. The bill will never pass the Senate, and will never be signed by the President.”
But she indicated she was hopeful that a reasonable solution could be found when House and Senate conferees come together to resolve their respective bills.
“The good news is now that this vote is behind us, we are close to the finish line. If House Republican leaders drop the divisive issues, appoint conferees and work with us in a bipartisan way, we can finalize a farm bill that creates jobs, reforms agriculture policy, and reduces the deficit by tens of billions of dollars. It’s time to get a comprehensive farm bill done to give farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to continue growing the economy.”
Ultimately 15 Republicans joined Republicans to oppose the bill, including Rep. Peter King of New York, who told reporters Wednesday he thought it went too far.
“It’s just too much, too quick, and we can’t be talking about possibly shutting the government down at the same time we’re cutting food stamps. We have to do one thing at a time,” he said.
Alaska’s Don Young voted against the cuts as well, which he defended in a statement released shortly after the vote.
“These proposed cuts would result in approximately 10,000 Alaskans losing SNAP support and harm food security for families throughout the state, particularly in rural areas. In fact, many Alaskans use SNAP to supplement their subsistence hunting and fishing,” Young said. “Isolated villages in Alaska face unique and burdensome economic barriers, and SNAP often provides a critical lifeline for residents. While I agree with many of my colleagues that we should continue to improve SNAP, making such drastic reductions in funding is not the best way forward.”
Were it to somehow make its way out of the Senate, the bill already faces a veto threat from the White House.
The bill has also drawn the ire of religious communities, including Sister Simone Campbell of the Catholic social justice group, NETWORK, and the Circle of Protection, a coalition of more than 65 heads of evangelical and Catholic leaders.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wackos intend to cage themselves in Idaho
Posted by Jim Hightower
Listen to this Commentary
I haven't heard such enthusiastic, downright raucous applause since Texas Gov. "Oops" Perry suggested in 2009 that his state just might withdraw from the union. Unfortunately for him, the applauders were not Texans, but the people of the other 49 states.
This year, though, Idaho is the recipient of hip-hip-hoorays from across the country. Why? Because it has been selected as the site of an extraordinary new town to be named "III Citadel." This will be a walled, heavily-fortified, one-square-mile settlement of some 7,000 armed & angry, ideologically-pure, anti-government extremists drawn from cities, towns and gopher holes all across America. Lucky you, Idaho!
Founder and apocalyptic visionary Christian Allen Kerodin, says the Roman numeral III in the name of his Citadel scheme represents what he calls the "3 percenters" – the percentage of Americans who are superpatriot survivalists capable of withstanding the coming economic doomsday and social upheaval. He says that, once established, he and his fellow Citadellians will take it upon themselves to restore America to Americans: "The Southwest will be purged of Latinos," he explains, and "Enclaves of Muslims such as in Detroit will be culled… by fed-up Americans looking for some payback." In Kerodin's barricaded utopia, everyone older than 13 "must possess an AR-15 assault rifle, five magazines, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition." In an odd comparison, he declares that his last bastion of liberty will be like Disneyland – "a walled, gated private property." Yeah – only Goofyer.
Of course, the III in the Citadel's name could also refer to Kerodin's three felony convictions.
Nonetheless, he's doing America a favor if he can actually bring 7,000 like-minded zealots into his compound. Once they're inside, we can sneak up and lock the gates from the outside.
"7,000 Gun-Loving "Patriots" Living in an Walled Citadel Built Around an Arms Factory in Idaho - What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" www.alternet.org, August 15, 2013.
Listen to this Commentary
I haven't heard such enthusiastic, downright raucous applause since Texas Gov. "Oops" Perry suggested in 2009 that his state just might withdraw from the union. Unfortunately for him, the applauders were not Texans, but the people of the other 49 states.
This year, though, Idaho is the recipient of hip-hip-hoorays from across the country. Why? Because it has been selected as the site of an extraordinary new town to be named "III Citadel." This will be a walled, heavily-fortified, one-square-mile settlement of some 7,000 armed & angry, ideologically-pure, anti-government extremists drawn from cities, towns and gopher holes all across America. Lucky you, Idaho!
Founder and apocalyptic visionary Christian Allen Kerodin, says the Roman numeral III in the name of his Citadel scheme represents what he calls the "3 percenters" – the percentage of Americans who are superpatriot survivalists capable of withstanding the coming economic doomsday and social upheaval. He says that, once established, he and his fellow Citadellians will take it upon themselves to restore America to Americans: "The Southwest will be purged of Latinos," he explains, and "Enclaves of Muslims such as in Detroit will be culled… by fed-up Americans looking for some payback." In Kerodin's barricaded utopia, everyone older than 13 "must possess an AR-15 assault rifle, five magazines, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition." In an odd comparison, he declares that his last bastion of liberty will be like Disneyland – "a walled, gated private property." Yeah – only Goofyer.
Of course, the III in the Citadel's name could also refer to Kerodin's three felony convictions.
Nonetheless, he's doing America a favor if he can actually bring 7,000 like-minded zealots into his compound. Once they're inside, we can sneak up and lock the gates from the outside.
"7,000 Gun-Loving "Patriots" Living in an Walled Citadel Built Around an Arms Factory in Idaho - What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" www.alternet.org, August 15, 2013.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Buy Jesse Jackson Jr.'s Mink Capes
By Jozen Cummings
One of the more shocking things revealed in Jesse Jackson Jr.'s scandal, in which the Chicago politician was found guilty of illegally spending campaign funds on superfluous items, was his taste in clothing. Jackson had a penchant for mink capes, as if he were trying to bring back the 1970's.
As Halloween fast approaches, those who are interested in dressing up like the disgraced son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson now have their chance to do so, according to the Associated Press.
The U.S. Marshals Service said it will start selling 13 items in an online auction Tuesday - with proceeds going to help repay $750,000 in campaign funds that the Chicago Democrat illegally spent.
One of the more shocking things revealed in Jesse Jackson Jr.'s scandal, in which the Chicago politician was found guilty of illegally spending campaign funds on superfluous items, was his taste in clothing. Jackson had a penchant for mink capes, as if he were trying to bring back the 1970's.
As Halloween fast approaches, those who are interested in dressing up like the disgraced son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson now have their chance to do so, according to the Associated Press.
The U.S. Marshals Service said it will start selling 13 items in an online auction Tuesday - with proceeds going to help repay $750,000 in campaign funds that the Chicago Democrat illegally spent.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
‘Something is wrong here’: Trauma center doctor pleads for an end to gun violence
By
The head doctor at a trauma center handling victims of the deadly Washington Navy Yard rampage gave an emotional plea to end gun violence in America.
“I may be the chief medical officer of a very large trauma center, but there’s something wrong here when we have these multiple shootings, these multiple injuries, there’s something wrong,” said Chief Medical Officer Dr. Janis Orlowski of MedStar Washington Hospital Center during a press briefing.
“The only thing I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it.”
“I’d like you to put my trauma center out of business,” Orlowski added.
MedStar Washington Hospital Center has been treating three gunshot victims–all who are expected to survive—after a heavily-armed gunman opened fire Monday morning Washington, D.C.’s Navy Yard.
While authorities continue to investigate the attack, police have identified the suspected shooter as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old civilian contractor for the Navy. Officials said the 34-year-old civilian contractor for the Navy is now dead, bringing the overall death toll to 13 people. At least 8 others were injured.
Orlowski said she spoke out not only as a doctor, but as a mother and a concerned member of the community.
“I worry about this, I worry about our community,” she told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. “Mass murders – people walking through schools, people walking through movie theaters, people walking through work places –unfortunately is common, or more common than what it should be. And I spoke from the heart when I said that we’ve got to work together to stop this.”
President Obama addressed the increasing pattern of shooting sprees across the country, even in the places one might least expect it. “We are confronting yet another mass shooting,” Obama said Monday. “And today it happened on a military installation in our nation’s capital.”
Following the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school and the Aurora movie theater, the Obama administration has been pushing for tighter gun control measures across the country. But the Senate bill to require background checks ultimately failed, dealing a major blow to gun control advocates.
Just last week, Colorado also recalled two Democratic state lawmakers who voted in favor of tighter gun restrictions.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view
By Bill Snyder | InfoWorld
Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. You can't pay just for the couple of dozen channels you actually watch. Instead, you have to pay for a couple of hundred channels, because the good stuff is scattered among a number of overstuffed packages.
Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web.
That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new - and wholly bad - economic model on the Web.
As it stands now, you pay your Internet service provider and go wherever you want on the Web. Packets of bits are just packets and have to be treated equally. That's the essence of Net neutrality.
But Verizon's plan, which the company has outlined during hearings in federal court and before Congress, would change that. Verizon and its allies would like to charge websites that carry popular content for the privilege of moving their packets to your connected device. Again, that's not hypothetical.
ESPN, for example, is in negotiations with at least one major cellular carrier to pay to exempt its content from subscribers' cellular data caps. And what's wrong with that? Well, ESPN is big and rich and can pay for that exemption, but other content providers - think of your local jazz station that streams audio - couldn't afford it and would be out of business. Or, they'd make you pay to visit their websites. Indeed, if that system had been in place 10 years ago, fledglings like Google or YouTube or Facebook might never have gotten out of the nest.
Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, says Verizon wants to "cable-ize the Internet." She writes in her blog that "The question presented by the case is: Does the U.S. government have any role in ensuring ubiquitous, open, world-class, interconnected, reasonably priced Internet access?"
Verizon: the new Standard Oil
Verizon and other carriers answer that question by saying no.
They argue that because they spent megabucks to build and maintain the network, they should be able to have a say over what content travels over it. They say that because Google and Facebook and other Internet companies make money by moving traffic over "their" networks, they should get a bigger piece of the action. (Never mind that pretty much every person and business that accesses Google or Facebook is already paying for the privilege, and paying more while getting less speed than users in most of Europe.)
In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously remarked that upstarts like Google would like to "use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it."
That's bad enough, but Verizon goes even further. It claims that it has a right to free speech and, like a newspaper that may or may not publish a story about something, it can choose which content it chooses to carry. "Broadband providers possess 'editorial discretion.' Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," Verizon's lawyers argue in a brief (PDF).
That's so crazy I won't bother to address it. But the FCC has done such a poor job of spelling out what it thinks it has the right to regulate and how that should work that the door is wide open for the carriers' bizarre - not to mention anticonsumer -- strategies and arguments.
I don't want to get down in the regulatory weeds, but there is one bit of legalese that's worth knowing: common carrier. Simply put, it means that the company doing the shipping can't mess with the contents. A railroad is a common carrier, and as such it can't decide whose cargo it will carry and whose it won't.
Before railroads were common carriers, they did things like favor products made by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which made him even richer and also led to the creation of a wildly out-of-control monopoly. (Yeshiva's Crawford has an in-depth but readable explanation of these issues in her book "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age."
But the FCC has never ruled that ISP's are common carriers, partly because it's afraid of the power of the lobbyists to influence Congress and partly because its directors lack spine. And now that lack of spine is about to bite the butt of everyone who uses the Web.
According to people who follow this stuff closely, because ISP's are not common carriers the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., are looking askance at the FCC's defense against Verizon's lawsuit, although a verdict isn't likely for months.
Here are the stakes: "If Verizon - or any ISP - can go to a website and demand extra money just to reach Verizon subscribers, the fundamental fairness of competing on the Internet would be disrupted. It would immediately make Verizon the gatekeeper to what would and would not succeed online. ISP's - not users, not the market - would decide which websites and services succeed," writes Michael Weinberg, vice president of Public Knowledge, a digital advocacy group.
A taste of the Web's future: The Time Warner vs. CBS dust-up
You don't have to wait for the Verizon verdict to get a taste of what the New Web Order would be like. Time Warner Cable and CBS just had a dust-up over how much Time Warner would pay CBS to carry its programming. When the pair couldn't agree, the cable giant stopped carrying CBS programming in New York City, Los Angeles, and Dallas. CBS then retaliated by stopping Time Warner subscribers from streaming its programming over the Internet.
They settled after about a month. Staying true to form, Time Warner refused to give customers a rebate as compensation for lost programming.
That's not exactly the same issue that we're facing in the fight over Net neutrality, but it should give you a sense of what life is like when the giants fight it out over what you're allowed to access and for how much. Users get caught in the middle, and the rights we've taken for granted simply disappear.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here (Add a comment) so that all our readers can share them, or reach me at bill@billsnyder.biz. Follow me on Twitter at BSnyderSF.
This article, "Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view," was originally published by InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bill Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology business developments at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.
Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. You can't pay just for the couple of dozen channels you actually watch. Instead, you have to pay for a couple of hundred channels, because the good stuff is scattered among a number of overstuffed packages.
Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web.
That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new - and wholly bad - economic model on the Web.
As it stands now, you pay your Internet service provider and go wherever you want on the Web. Packets of bits are just packets and have to be treated equally. That's the essence of Net neutrality.
But Verizon's plan, which the company has outlined during hearings in federal court and before Congress, would change that. Verizon and its allies would like to charge websites that carry popular content for the privilege of moving their packets to your connected device. Again, that's not hypothetical.
ESPN, for example, is in negotiations with at least one major cellular carrier to pay to exempt its content from subscribers' cellular data caps. And what's wrong with that? Well, ESPN is big and rich and can pay for that exemption, but other content providers - think of your local jazz station that streams audio - couldn't afford it and would be out of business. Or, they'd make you pay to visit their websites. Indeed, if that system had been in place 10 years ago, fledglings like Google or YouTube or Facebook might never have gotten out of the nest.
Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, says Verizon wants to "cable-ize the Internet." She writes in her blog that "The question presented by the case is: Does the U.S. government have any role in ensuring ubiquitous, open, world-class, interconnected, reasonably priced Internet access?"
Verizon: the new Standard Oil
Verizon and other carriers answer that question by saying no.
They argue that because they spent megabucks to build and maintain the network, they should be able to have a say over what content travels over it. They say that because Google and Facebook and other Internet companies make money by moving traffic over "their" networks, they should get a bigger piece of the action. (Never mind that pretty much every person and business that accesses Google or Facebook is already paying for the privilege, and paying more while getting less speed than users in most of Europe.)
In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously remarked that upstarts like Google would like to "use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it."
That's bad enough, but Verizon goes even further. It claims that it has a right to free speech and, like a newspaper that may or may not publish a story about something, it can choose which content it chooses to carry. "Broadband providers possess 'editorial discretion.' Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," Verizon's lawyers argue in a brief (PDF).
That's so crazy I won't bother to address it. But the FCC has done such a poor job of spelling out what it thinks it has the right to regulate and how that should work that the door is wide open for the carriers' bizarre - not to mention anticonsumer -- strategies and arguments.
I don't want to get down in the regulatory weeds, but there is one bit of legalese that's worth knowing: common carrier. Simply put, it means that the company doing the shipping can't mess with the contents. A railroad is a common carrier, and as such it can't decide whose cargo it will carry and whose it won't.
Before railroads were common carriers, they did things like favor products made by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which made him even richer and also led to the creation of a wildly out-of-control monopoly. (Yeshiva's Crawford has an in-depth but readable explanation of these issues in her book "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age."
But the FCC has never ruled that ISP's are common carriers, partly because it's afraid of the power of the lobbyists to influence Congress and partly because its directors lack spine. And now that lack of spine is about to bite the butt of everyone who uses the Web.
According to people who follow this stuff closely, because ISP's are not common carriers the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., are looking askance at the FCC's defense against Verizon's lawsuit, although a verdict isn't likely for months.
Here are the stakes: "If Verizon - or any ISP - can go to a website and demand extra money just to reach Verizon subscribers, the fundamental fairness of competing on the Internet would be disrupted. It would immediately make Verizon the gatekeeper to what would and would not succeed online. ISP's - not users, not the market - would decide which websites and services succeed," writes Michael Weinberg, vice president of Public Knowledge, a digital advocacy group.
A taste of the Web's future: The Time Warner vs. CBS dust-up
You don't have to wait for the Verizon verdict to get a taste of what the New Web Order would be like. Time Warner Cable and CBS just had a dust-up over how much Time Warner would pay CBS to carry its programming. When the pair couldn't agree, the cable giant stopped carrying CBS programming in New York City, Los Angeles, and Dallas. CBS then retaliated by stopping Time Warner subscribers from streaming its programming over the Internet.
They settled after about a month. Staying true to form, Time Warner refused to give customers a rebate as compensation for lost programming.
That's not exactly the same issue that we're facing in the fight over Net neutrality, but it should give you a sense of what life is like when the giants fight it out over what you're allowed to access and for how much. Users get caught in the middle, and the rights we've taken for granted simply disappear.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here (Add a comment) so that all our readers can share them, or reach me at bill@billsnyder.biz. Follow me on Twitter at BSnyderSF.
This article, "Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view," was originally published by InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bill Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology business developments at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Raspberry Pi as an Ad Blocking Access Point
Ads? What Ads?
Advertising is prevalent on the web. It's a necessary evil at times, but can also be greatly overused by companies slowing down your page loads, and bringing your connected devices to a crawl. Learn how to block these ads using your Raspberry Pi.
Learn More
Friday, September 13, 2013
The Day John Boehner Admitted He's Totally at a Loss
The speaker is out of ideas for dealing with his restive right wing.
By
“No. Do you have an idea?” Boehner replied, according to Politico. “They’ll just shoot it down anyway.”
Boehner’s dilemma -- finding a way to satisfy the right wing of his caucus that doesn’t involve shutting down the government -- isn’t new. The debate rages in Washington over whether he has an impossible job or whether he’s just terrible at it, but it doesn't really matter.
Throughout it all, as Congress lurches from crisis to crisis, he has always evinced a survivor’s weary optimism that this, too, shall pass. But now he is finally, totally, out of ideas.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Ring of Fire 9/8/13
Farron Cousins from The Trial Lawyer Magazine will be sitting in for Pap
this week.
American CEO's are being handsomely rewarded for destroying the businesses that they are running, and Zoe Carpenter from The Nation magazine will tell us how these CEOs continuously "fail upwards."
We'll also be discussing the pay-to-play scandals that could finally take down the Keystone XL pipeline.
And we'll be taking a look at a mini-documentary produced by Ring of Fire. The flim features Ring of Fire hosts Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discussing the history of corporate fraud against the government, and the role that whistleblowers play in helping to keep corporations from taking advantage of federal contracts.
American CEO's are being handsomely rewarded for destroying the businesses that they are running, and Zoe Carpenter from The Nation magazine will tell us how these CEOs continuously "fail upwards."
We'll also be discussing the pay-to-play scandals that could finally take down the Keystone XL pipeline.
And we'll be taking a look at a mini-documentary produced by Ring of Fire. The flim features Ring of Fire hosts Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discussing the history of corporate fraud against the government, and the role that whistleblowers play in helping to keep corporations from taking advantage of federal contracts.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Left with nothing
Published on September 8, 2013
This man owed $134 in property taxes. The District sold the lien to an investor who foreclosed on his $197,000 house and sold it. He and many other homeowners like him were
Left with nothing.
On the day Bennie Coleman lost his house, the day armed U.S. marshals came to his door and ordered him off the property, he slumped in a folding chair across the street and watched the vestiges of his 76 years hauled to the curb.
Movers carted out his easy chair, his clothes, his television. Next came the things that were closest to his heart: his Marine Corps medals and photographs of his dead wife, Martha. The duplex in Northeast Washington that Coleman bought with cash two decades earlier was emptied and shuttered.
By sundown, he had nowhere to go.
All because he didn’t pay a $134 property tax bill.
The retired Marine sergeant lost his house on that summer day two years ago through a tax lien sale — an obscure program run by D.C. government that enlists private investors to help the city recover unpaid taxes.
For decades, the District placed liens on properties when homeowners failed to pay their bills, then sold those liens at public auctions to mom-and-pop investors who drew a profit by charging owners interest on top of the tax debt until the money was repaid.
But under the watch of local leaders, the program has morphed into a predatory system of debt collection for well-financed, out-of-town companies that turned $500 delinquencies into $5,000 debts — then foreclosed on homes when families couldn’t pay, a Washington Post investigation found.
As the housing market soared, the investors scooped up liens in every corner of the city, then started charging homeowners thousands in legal fees and other costs that far exceeded their original tax bills, with rates for attorneys reaching $450 an hour.
Families have been forced to borrow or strike payment plans to save their homes.
Others weren’t as lucky. Tax lien purchasers have foreclosed on nearly 200 houses since 2005 and are now pressing to take 1,200 more, many owned free and clear by families for generations.
Investors also took storefronts, parking lots and vacant land — about 500 properties in all, or an average of one a week. In dozens of cases, the liens were less than $500.
Coleman, struggling with dementia, was among those who lost a home. His debt had snowballed to $4,999 — 37 times the original tax bill. Not only did he lose his $197,000 house, but he also was stripped of the equity because tax lien purchasers are entitled to everything, trumping even mortgage companies.
“This is destroying lives,” said Christopher Leinberger, a distinguished scholar and research professor of urban real estate at George Washington University.
Officials at the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue said that without tax sales, property owners wouldn’t feel compelled to pay their bills.
“The tax sale is the last resort. It’s also the first resort — it’s the only way in the statute to collect debt,” said deputy chief financial officer Stephen Cordi.
But the District, a hotbed for the tax lien industry, has done little to shield its most vulnerable homeowners from unscrupulous operators.
Foreclosures have upended families in some of the city’s most distressed neighborhoods. Houses were taken from a housekeeper, a department store clerk, a seamstress and even the estates of dead people. The hardest hit: elderly homeowners, who were often sick or dying when tax lien purchasers seized their houses.
One 65-year-old flower shop owner lost his Northwest Washington home of 40 years after a company from Florida paid his back taxes — $1,025 — and then took the house through foreclosure while he was in hospice, dying of cancer. A 95-year-old church choir leader lost her family home to a Maryland investor over a tax debt of $44.79 while she was struggling with Alzheimer’s in a nursing home.
Other cities and states took steps to curb abuses, such as capping the fees, safeguarding houses owned by the elderly or scrapping tax sales altogether and instead collecting the money themselves.
“Where is the justice? They’re taking people’s lives,” said Beverly Smalls, whose elderly aunt lost her home in Northeast Washington. “It’s just not right.”
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Colbert: Every Time I Watch Eric Bolling, I Want to Kill Myself
By Heather
Stephen Colbert gave Eric Bolling the treatment he deserved this Thursday evening, after Bolling suggested saving taxpayer money by sending a suicide manual to violent inmates earlier this week.
About all I can say is the feeling is mutual after watching too much of anyone on that network and I'm guessing Colbert is not alone when it comes to Bolling.
Here's more from Raw Story: Colbert: Watching Eric Bolling ‘makes me want to kill myself’:
Stephen Colbert gave Eric Bolling the treatment he deserved this Thursday evening, after Bolling suggested saving taxpayer money by sending a suicide manual to violent inmates earlier this week.
About all I can say is the feeling is mutual after watching too much of anyone on that network and I'm guessing Colbert is not alone when it comes to Bolling.
Here's more from Raw Story: Colbert: Watching Eric Bolling ‘makes me want to kill myself’:
On Thursday night’s edition of “The Colbert Report,” host Stephen Colbert praised Eric Bolling of Fox News’ “The Five” and said that Bolling’s ingenious solution to lowering prison costs might be a brilliant way of saving taxpayer money. In fact, Colbert said, why not extend the idea of cash-saving suicides to Social Security recipients and other “freeloaders?” [...]
When he needs a little lift, said Colbert, he turns to “Stephen Colbert’s Smile File” for some happy news. “Tonight’s Smile File,” he said, “Ariel Castro.”
“Now folks, you might be saying, ‘Stephen, Ariel Castro is a vile monster whose suicide this week is just the dark end of a dark life. How can anything associated with that man possibly make me smile?’” he explained. “That’s what I thought.”
“Until I tuned in to Fox News’ ‘The Five,’ starring Eric Bolling, who always sees the glass as half full,” he explained, before rolling video of Bolling announcing Castro’s suicide and crowing delightedly that taxpayers are off the hook for his care and feeding during his imprisonment. Read on...
Friday, September 6, 2013
Liberal Firebrand Alan Grayson Leads The Opposition To Strike On Syria
By Deborah Montesano
The controversy over whether to punish the Syrian government for the
chemical weapons attack that took place there has done the unbelievable.
It split the political parties and forged new alliances, creating
unlikely bonds between Tea Partiers and liberals. Rep. Alan Grayson,
D-FL, has become one of the loudest voices leading the opposition to
military intervention in Syria.
Grayson is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which questioned Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday about the chemical weapons episode. On Thursday, the congressman appeared on the PBS News Hour and Democracy Now to express, first of all, his appreciation that President Obama put the question before Congress — but secondly, to make the case for not doing as the President requested. He sums up his own conclusion, that a ‘limited strike’ would not be a good idea, with four major points:
1. It not only isn’t our responsibility, but it’s especially not our responsibility to act unilaterally. He said:
It’s a novel idea that Congress might actually be listening to the people on this issue and that a new coalition, however temporary, is coming out of the process. The participants in the coalition surely don’t all have the same motivation, but what Grayson wants is to focus on the real concerns of the American people — the 20 million who are still looking for full-time work, the 50 million who don’t have food security, and the 40 million who can’t afford to see a doctor.
And he especially wants them to continue making their voices heard. In order to facilitate the process, he has set up a website, dontattacksyria.com. By signing the site’s petition, the people can send a clear message to Congress: military intervention in Syria is totally unacceptable.
Here’s a video from Grayson’s interview with PBS on why he opposes military intervention in Syria:
Rep.
Grayson (D-FL) on military intervention in Syria: ‘You notice how, with
196 countries in the world, no one else wants to touch this problem.’
Photo from The Blaze.
Grayson is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which questioned Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday about the chemical weapons episode. On Thursday, the congressman appeared on the PBS News Hour and Democracy Now to express, first of all, his appreciation that President Obama put the question before Congress — but secondly, to make the case for not doing as the President requested. He sums up his own conclusion, that a ‘limited strike’ would not be a good idea, with four major points:
You notice how, with 196 countries in the world, no one else wants to touch this problem … The international community has spoken. We are the only ones who are contemplating anything like this.2. There is not a clear result that a strike can accomplish. It won’t end the regime or the civil war or even prevent another use of chemical warfare:
We cannot dictate, much less even influence, what goes on in Syria. It started as a civil war. It’s evolving into a proxy war between Shiite Muslim fundamentalists and Sunni Muslim fundamentalists, both of whom historically are our enemies.3. A strike would be expensive, costing up to a billion dollars:
The best guess at this point is that the attack we’re talking about here, as it’s been described in general terms, will cost a billion dollars. That’s a billion dollars that could be spent, at least in part, on humanitarian aid to help the almost two million refugees who are now in Jordan and Turkey. It’s also a billion dollars that could be used for domestic needs.4. It could spin out of control:
It’s clear that if the Syrian government does anything other than simply taking a pounding and ignoring it and brushing it off, and it retaliates in virtually any way, then there will be a war between Syria and the United States, and it will involve boots on the ground.Grayson then puts the matter in perspective by talking about the enormous problems that the U.S. faces, that must be dealt with by Congress, and soon. Yet, valuable time is consumed by the debate over Syria at what is an extremely crucial moment:
… three weeks from now, there’s going to be a government shutdown, and five weeks from now, the government runs out of money when we reach the debt limit.
It’s appalling to me, appalling to me, that we spend two or three or four weeks debating whether to create a whole new category of war called humanitarian war, rather than dealing with our own problems and trying to solve them.Americans largely agree. The Congressman told interviewer Jeffrey Brown that he and his colleagues in the House are hearing opposition to the president’s proposed strike by a ratio of 100 to 1. Furthermore, at the time the News Hour aired, only 20 members of Congress were supportive of the idea and 183 opposed.
It’s a novel idea that Congress might actually be listening to the people on this issue and that a new coalition, however temporary, is coming out of the process. The participants in the coalition surely don’t all have the same motivation, but what Grayson wants is to focus on the real concerns of the American people — the 20 million who are still looking for full-time work, the 50 million who don’t have food security, and the 40 million who can’t afford to see a doctor.
And he especially wants them to continue making their voices heard. In order to facilitate the process, he has set up a website, dontattacksyria.com. By signing the site’s petition, the people can send a clear message to Congress: military intervention in Syria is totally unacceptable.
Here’s a video from Grayson’s interview with PBS on why he opposes military intervention in Syria:
Muted labor protests amid fears of Walmart retaliation
By Ned Resnikoff
Two fired Walmart workers and one current employee were arrested Thursday during a national wave of demonstrations against the company.
The protesters, members of the labor group OUR Walmart, were demonstrating outside the Manhattan office of investment banker Christopher Williams, a member of the Walmart board of directors. The protesters hoped to deliver Williams a petition demanding that Walmart pay all employees a minimum wage of $25,000 annually and stop its alleged retaliation against strikers. Two weeks ago, OUR Walmart promised an escalation in the ongoing dispute with the company if those demands were not met by Labor Day.
OUR Walmart organizers promise similar events and rallies across 15 cities nationwide over the course of the day. The rolling series of actions, which organizers say will include hundreds of Walmart employees and thousands more community supporters, is expected to be the largest anti-Walmart event since last year’s Black Friday strike.
But this time, nobody is going to be striking; and even though organizers are not asking Walmart employees to walk off the job, fewer are expected to show up than during Black Friday. If Walmart did lay off some 20 organized workers to send a message, as OUR Walmart claims and Walmart denies, then it appears to be working.
“People are scared because they see how Walmart retaliates,” said Colby Harris, an OUR Walmart member and Walmart employee based in Dallas, Texas. He claimed that OUR Walmart has more members than ever, but “not everyone has spoken out because of the reality of losing their jobs.”
In late May and early June, roughly 100 Walmart employees affiliated with OUR Walmart engaged in what they said was an unfair labor practice (ULP) strike against the company. Strikers are protected from termination by the National Labor Relations Act, but Walmart has argued that the category doesn’t apply to workers who engage in what Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg has called “hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”
“We actually have a very strict policy against retaliation at Walmart,” said Walmart spokesperson Brooke Buchanan. “And the associates who were terminated were terminated for other reasons, violating our policies, and it did not have anything to do with their association with this group or any other group. If a Walmart associate alleges retaliation has occurred, we will look into the situation, investigate, and take appropriate action.”
Dominic Ware, an OUR Walmart member and former Walmart employee based in the Bay Area, said he was fired in early July and that management told him specifically it was because of his participation in the May-June strike.
“They said the strike was not recognized as a ULP strike,” he said. Though Ware has tried to discuss the firing with his former manager, “to this day, he will not have an open door with me.”
In addition to the 20 workers which OUR Walmart claims have been wrongfully fired, they say another 50 or so have been disciplined for organizing. Harris, though he is still employed at Walmart, told MSNBC he had been written up three times already.
Buchanan shrugged off the latest protests, describing them as “a handful of union-orchestrated media stunts” and saying that OUR Walmart grossly exaggerated the number of Walmart employees involved.
“This is not an associate-based demonstration,” said Buchanan. “This has been sponsored and put on by the unions, something they’ve attempted and failed to be successful at over the last couple of years.” She also claimed that many demonstrators were paid to appear at protests, an allegation which OUR Walmart said is untrue.
PICO RIVERA, CA – MAY 30: Walmart cashier Martha
Sellers (C) walks a picket line with supporters to protest Walmart’s retaliation
against workers who speak out on May 30, 2013 in Pico Rivera, California.
Sellers and several other striking Walmart employees and their supporters borded
a bus to start a 1,500-mile bus journey titled “Ride for Respect,”‘ ending at
the company’s annual meeting at its headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas.
(Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)
Two fired Walmart workers and one current employee were arrested Thursday during a national wave of demonstrations against the company.
The protesters, members of the labor group OUR Walmart, were demonstrating outside the Manhattan office of investment banker Christopher Williams, a member of the Walmart board of directors. The protesters hoped to deliver Williams a petition demanding that Walmart pay all employees a minimum wage of $25,000 annually and stop its alleged retaliation against strikers. Two weeks ago, OUR Walmart promised an escalation in the ongoing dispute with the company if those demands were not met by Labor Day.
OUR Walmart organizers promise similar events and rallies across 15 cities nationwide over the course of the day. The rolling series of actions, which organizers say will include hundreds of Walmart employees and thousands more community supporters, is expected to be the largest anti-Walmart event since last year’s Black Friday strike.
But this time, nobody is going to be striking; and even though organizers are not asking Walmart employees to walk off the job, fewer are expected to show up than during Black Friday. If Walmart did lay off some 20 organized workers to send a message, as OUR Walmart claims and Walmart denies, then it appears to be working.
“People are scared because they see how Walmart retaliates,” said Colby Harris, an OUR Walmart member and Walmart employee based in Dallas, Texas. He claimed that OUR Walmart has more members than ever, but “not everyone has spoken out because of the reality of losing their jobs.”
In late May and early June, roughly 100 Walmart employees affiliated with OUR Walmart engaged in what they said was an unfair labor practice (ULP) strike against the company. Strikers are protected from termination by the National Labor Relations Act, but Walmart has argued that the category doesn’t apply to workers who engage in what Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg has called “hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”
“We actually have a very strict policy against retaliation at Walmart,” said Walmart spokesperson Brooke Buchanan. “And the associates who were terminated were terminated for other reasons, violating our policies, and it did not have anything to do with their association with this group or any other group. If a Walmart associate alleges retaliation has occurred, we will look into the situation, investigate, and take appropriate action.”
Dominic Ware, an OUR Walmart member and former Walmart employee based in the Bay Area, said he was fired in early July and that management told him specifically it was because of his participation in the May-June strike.
“They said the strike was not recognized as a ULP strike,” he said. Though Ware has tried to discuss the firing with his former manager, “to this day, he will not have an open door with me.”
In addition to the 20 workers which OUR Walmart claims have been wrongfully fired, they say another 50 or so have been disciplined for organizing. Harris, though he is still employed at Walmart, told MSNBC he had been written up three times already.
Buchanan shrugged off the latest protests, describing them as “a handful of union-orchestrated media stunts” and saying that OUR Walmart grossly exaggerated the number of Walmart employees involved.
“This is not an associate-based demonstration,” said Buchanan. “This has been sponsored and put on by the unions, something they’ve attempted and failed to be successful at over the last couple of years.” She also claimed that many demonstrators were paid to appear at protests, an allegation which OUR Walmart said is untrue.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
This Summer’s Parasites and Viruses Continue to Make People Sick
This summer’s two prolonged outbreaks, one caused by a parasite and the other by a rare Hepatitis A virus, are continuing to add confirmed cases. Neither the parasite nor the viruses are common to North America, but both have moved in for an extended stay.
As of Sept. 3, the Hepatitis A virus has sickened 161 people in 10 states, including Arizona (23), California (78), Colorado (28), Hawaii (8), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New Mexico (11), Nevada (6), Utah (3) and Wisconsin (2).
The common source for the rare virus strain was a frozen berry mix called “Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend” sold by Costco stores.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the four cases attributed to Wisconsin, New Jersey and New Hampshire involved consumption of the virus-contaminated berries in Western states. Six other cases are thought to be due to secondary exposure to other confirmed cases.
The illnesses are winding down as the onset dates for the illnesses range from March 31 to July 26.
Almost half of those sickened (70) required hospitalization, but no deaths have been reported.
The majority of victims, or 55 percent, are women. Ages range from one to 84 years of age. Eleven children younger than 18 years were ill, and none were vaccinated for Hep A. The bulk of those sickened, or 57 percent, fell between 40 and 64 years of age.
Summer’s other lingering outbreak involving the Cyclospora parasite has reached 659 cases in 24 states. Texas, where the outbreak has hit hard in the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area, has seen its case count exceed 300 for the first time, coming in at 305.
After Texas comes Iowa (156), Nebraska (86), Florida (32), Wisconsin (16), Illinois (11), Arkansas (10), Georgia (5), New York, (7) Missouri (5), Kansas (4), New Jersey (4) Louisiana (3), Virginia, (3) Connecticut (2), Ohio (2), Minnesota (2), and one each for Michigan, California, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming.
Like the other outbreak, in a handful of cases the parasites were likely acquired outside of the state where the case was reported.
The Iowa-Nebraska cases were sourced to a mixed salad from Taylor Farms de Mexico, which were served by Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants, among other outlets.
Taylor suspended product shipments to the U.S. from Aug. 12-25, 2013. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the other states continue work to source the illnesses in those states.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Ohio kidnapper Ariel Castro dead, suicide suspected
By Traci G. Lee, @traciglee
1:37 AM on 09/04/2013
Convicted Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro was found dead Tuesday night, a prison spokesperson confirmed. Castro, the 53-year-old man arrested and found guilty of kidnapping and raping three women for a decade, was reportedly found hanged in his prison cell in an apparent suicide.
According to a statement from the Ohio Department of Corrections, Castro was discovered in his cell at 9:20 p.m., and transported to the Ohio State University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead 90 minutes later. ”He was housed in protective custody, which means he was in a cell by himself and rounds are required every 30 minutes at staggered intervals,” the department’s statement read.
Castro was arrested in May after Amanda Berry, one of the three women he held in captivity for a decade, escaped and called for help. The three— Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight—were abducted separately by Castro between 2002 and 2004, and assaulted and raped for years. Castro pleaded guilty in August to 937 counts including kidnapping and rape, and agreed to a life sentence plus 1,000 years without parole.
A spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Corrections says an investigation into Castro’s death is under way.
1:37 AM on 09/04/2013
Convicted Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro was found dead Tuesday night, a prison spokesperson confirmed. Castro, the 53-year-old man arrested and found guilty of kidnapping and raping three women for a decade, was reportedly found hanged in his prison cell in an apparent suicide.
According to a statement from the Ohio Department of Corrections, Castro was discovered in his cell at 9:20 p.m., and transported to the Ohio State University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead 90 minutes later. ”He was housed in protective custody, which means he was in a cell by himself and rounds are required every 30 minutes at staggered intervals,” the department’s statement read.
Castro was arrested in May after Amanda Berry, one of the three women he held in captivity for a decade, escaped and called for help. The three— Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight—were abducted separately by Castro between 2002 and 2004, and assaulted and raped for years. Castro pleaded guilty in August to 937 counts including kidnapping and rape, and agreed to a life sentence plus 1,000 years without parole.
A spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Corrections says an investigation into Castro’s death is under way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)