A non-profit news blog, focused on providing independent journalism.

Monday 22 June 2015

In 2014, Police Killed Nearly Twice as Many Americans than Mass Shooters Combined Since 1982

image: http://bit.ly/1CpKlLo

In-2014-Alone,-Police-Killed-Nearly-Twice-as-Many-Americans-than-All-Mass-Shootings-Combined

(TFTP) — As Karl Rove calls for repealing the second amendment, this behind the scenes Republican puppet master epitomizes what those in favor of gun control really want — only the government can have guns.

Every time a lunatic, who is usually on some form mind altering pharmaceutical, goes on a shooting rampage, the do-gooders in Washington, with the aid of their citizen flocks, take to the TV and the internet to call for disarming the American people.

The citizens who call for themselves and their neighbors to be disarmed, likely think no deeper than the shallow speeches given by the political blowhards, designed to appeal to emotion only. They do not think of what happens during and after the government attempts to remove guns from society. They also completely ignore the fact that criminals do not obey laws and making guns illegal would have zero effect on criminals possessing guns.

In the perfect statist world in which only the government has guns, we’re told that crime rates would plummet, people wouldn’t be murdered, gun violence would be brought to its knees, and a disarmed heaven on Earth would ensue. But how effective would disarming the citizens actually be at preventing gun violence, while at the same time keeping guns in the hands of government?

One simple way to determine the outcome would be to compare mass shootings in America with those killed by police only. It is entirely too easy to compare all senseless murders carried out by the state to those carried out by citizens, so we will zoom in with a microscope.

However, just as a point of reference, in the 20th Century alone, governments were responsible for 260,000,000 deaths worldwide. That number is greater than all deaths from illicit drug use, STD’s, Homicides, and Traffic Accidents — combined.

Now, on to the micro-comparison.

According to a comprehensive database of all American mass shootings that have taken place since 1982, constructed by Mother Jones, there have been exactly 567 deaths attributed to mass shootings that have taken place on American soil.

If we were to compare that number to citizens killed by police in the same time frame, the comparison would be off the charts. So, for the sake of simplicity, we will compare all of the mass shooting deaths in the last 30 years, to the number of citizens killed by police this year.

The total number of people killed by police in America this year, as of June 22, 2015, is 533. This number is set to increase by one, on average, every 8 hours. 

We are comparing a time period of 30 years, to 6 months and the ratio is nearly 1 to 1, citizens killed by cops vs. citizens killed in mass shootings. That is a 60-fold difference.

That is a staggering number and should shock the conscious. But for the sake of sensationalism, let’s compare all of 2014 to the number of mass shooting deaths.

Last year, American cops killed 1,100 citizens. One year.

In 2014 alone, cops killed almost double the amount of people killed in all US mass shootings in the last 30 years. Read that sentence again to really let it sink in.

As the blowhards spew their nonsense about grabbing guns from law-abiding citizens and Obama insinuates that mass shootings are the “new norm,” all of these people conveniently ignore the giant pink elephant in the living room — cops in America are killing citizens at an alarming rate!

In the United States, the overall homicide rate is 5 per 100,000 among the citizens.

According to Edward Stringham, of the NY Daily News, although official statistics have historically been scant, we now know that police killed 1,100 Americans in 2014 and 476 Americans in the first five months of 2015. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.

The police kill rate is nearly 30 times that of the average citizen, yet somehow people still call for disarming citizens and say nothing about the police.

The next time your brainwashed friends try to tell you that citizens should be disarmed, tell them what that really means; they only want cops, who kill indiscriminately, with zero accountability, and far more often, to be the ones with guns.

Emails Show Jonathan Gruber Played Bigger Role with Obama Administration on Healthcare Than Previously Admitted

Screen Shot 2015-06-22 at 11.51.43 AM

Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist whose comments about the health-care law touched off a political furor, worked more closely than previously known with the White House and top federal officials to shape the law, previously unreleased emails show.

The emails show frequent consultations between Mr. Gruber and top Obama administration staffers and advisers in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on the Affordable Care Act. They show he informed HHS about interviews with reporters and discussions with lawmakers, and he consulted with HHS about how to publicly describe his role.

The White House has described Mr. Gruber as having a limited role in crafting the law. President Barack Obama in 2014 said Mr. Gruber was “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” Mr. Gruber told Congress last year he disagreed with the widespread characterization of his role as the “architect” of Mr. Obama’s health-care plan.

“Thank you for being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment,” according to Sept. 9, 2009 email to Mr. Gruber from Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama administration health adviser who worked at HHS and the White House. In a November 2009 email, she called Mr. Gruber “our hero.”

– From the Wall Street Journal article: MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber Had Bigger Role in Health Law, Emails Show

Pretty much anyone reading this post will be intimately familiar with Jonathan “stupidity of the American voter” Gruber. In case you need a refresher, here’s an excerpt from last fall’s piece, Video of the Day – Obamacare Architect Credits “Lack of Transparency” and “Stupidity of the American People” for Passage of Healthcare Law:

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter” helped Congress approve ObamaCare.

He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn’t know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval. 

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

 

Although the mindset above clearly represents the Obama Administration’s opinion of the unwashed masses, it naturally went into damage control mode after Mr. Gruber’s comments went viral, insisting that the economist played only a very minor role in crafting and selling Obamacare. Similar to most things that come out of Obama’s mouth, this was a boldfaced lie.

The Wall Street Journal reports that:

Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist whose comments about the health-care law touched off a political furor, worked more closely than previously known with the White House and top federal officials to shape the law, previously unreleased emails show.

The emails, provided by the House Oversight Committee to The Wall Street Journal, cover messages Mr. Gruber sent from January 2009 through March 2010. Committee staffers said they worked with MIT to obtain the 20,000 pages of emails.

The emails show frequent consultations between Mr. Gruber and top Obama administration staffers and advisers in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on the Affordable Care Act. They show he informed HHS about interviews with reporters and discussions with lawmakers, and he consulted with HHS about how to publicly describe his role.

The administration has sought to distance itself from the economist in the wake of his controversial statements in a 2013 video, where he said the health law passed because of the “huge political advantage” of the legislation’s lacking transparency. He also referred to the “stupidity of the American voter.”

Republicans seized on the comments as evidence that supporters of the law purposely misled the public about its costs. Mr. Gruber received nearly $400,000 from HHS for his work focusing on health-policy computer models, according to public records.

Cronyism pays very, very well in America.

The White House has described Mr. Gruber as having a limited role in crafting the law. President Barack Obama in 2014 said Mr. Gruber was “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” Mr. Gruber told Congress last year he disagreed with the widespread characterization of his role as the “architect” of Mr. Obama’s health-care plan.

“His proximity to HHS and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), chairman of the House oversight committee. “There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said. He put up this facade he was an arm’s length away. It was a farce.”

Mr. Chaffetz on Sunday sent a letter to HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell requesting information justifying the department’s sole-source contract with Mr. Gruber for his work on the health law.

Mr. Gruber declined to comment.

One email indicates Mr. Gruber was invited to meet with Mr. Obama. In a July 2009 email, he wrote that Mr. Orszag had “invited me to meet with the head honcho to talk about cost control.”

“Thank you for being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment,” according to Sept. 9, 2009 email to Mr. Gruber from Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama administration health adviser who worked at HHS and the White House. In a November 2009 email, she called Mr. Gruber “our hero.”

Mr. Gruber also informed HHS about interviews he had with health policy reporters such as Ezra Klein, previously of the Washington Post and now with Vox Media. In a November 2009 email, Mr. Gruber let a top HHS official know the conversation went well and the story would post soon.

Mainstream media on the case as usual.

In a Sept. 23, 2009, email, Mr. Gruber emailed Ms. Lambrew saying “pharma is going to be a huge winner from this bill—maybe $15 billion/year in incremental revenue. Any way to go after them harder for financing?”

You want to know who wasn’t a huge winner? The stupid American voter.

Here’s some proof:

Yep, You Guessed It – Obamacare Website Funneling Private Consumer Info to Private Companies

ObamaFraud: GAO Study Finds Almost All Fake Applicants are Approved for Subsidized ObamaCare

The Obama Administration is Forcing Insurance Companies to Keep Quiet About ObamaCare Problems

Woman Touted as Obamacare Success Story is Now Kicked Off Obamacare

Humana Warns of “‘Adverse ObamaCare Enrollment Mix”

Computer Security Expert Claims he Hacked the ObamaCare Website in 4 Minutes

Serfs Up – Average Healthcare Premiums Have Soared 39%-56% Post Obamacare

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Goldman's "Conspiracy Theory" Stunner: A Greek Default Is Precisely What The ECB Wants

Last week, we showed a curious thesis by Goldman, which asked if there is a new and "ominous" development in European currency swings, namely the emergence of what may be a "under the table" fight between the ECB and the Bundesbank on which bonds to monetize.

This is what Goldman said then:

the average maturity of ECB bond buying is around 8.0 years, in line with what Executive Board member Coeure said in his May 18 speech. However, while Italy and Spain see purchases that have an average maturity above that of the outstanding debt stock, Bundesbank buying has fallen short from the very beginning.... This kind of signal – from the key hawk in the Eurosystem – has the potential to undercut the credibility of ECB QE, since it weakens the portfolio balance channel.

After all, it was supposed to be low yields in core Europe into risk assets. If those yields now rise and become more volatile, such portfolio effects will be lessened.

Today, in a follow up report by Goldman's Robin Brooks and company, and one which seeks to validate Goldman's "top trade" thesis of a weak Euro currency, (recall Goldman top trade #1 for 2015: "Stay long EUR/$ downside via 1-year 1.00/0.95 put spread (originally at 1.20/1.15 with a premium of 70bp EUR at initiation, expiring on 20 Nov 2015, opened at a spot EUR/$ of 1.253 on 20 Nov 2014, currently at 1.135.") Goldman explains why despite relentless Greek drama, the EUR hasn't moved and its conclusion is that this is due to "growing question marks over ECB QE" as a result of the surprising bond-buying on the short end (at the expense of reducing longer-term maturity holdings) out of the Bundesbank which has "reduced the maturity of its QE buying."

From Goldman:

As tensions around Greece have mounted, it is something of a puzzle that EUR/$ has shown little reaction. Our explanation, laid out in our last FX Views, is that much of this price action stems from the Bundesbank, which has reduced the maturity of its QE buying, enabling the Bund sell-off and moving longer-dated rate differentials in favor of the Euro. EUR/$ thus hasn’t traded Greece, but instead growing question marks over ECB QE.

Here is Goldman's full take:

From an economic perspective, Greece shows that “internal devaluation” – whereby structural reforms are meant to restore competitiveness and growth –is difficult politically and a poor substitute for outright devaluation. Emerging markets that devalue during crises quickly return to growth, powered by exports, while Greek GDP continues to languish. We emphasize this because – even if a compromise involving a debt haircut is found – this will not do much to return Greece to growth. Only a managed devaluation, with the help of the creditors, can do that. With respect to EUR/$, we think the Bund sell-off increases EUR/$ downside if tensions over Greece escalate further.This is because the ECB, including via the Bundesbank, would almost surely step up QE to prevent contagion. We estimate that the immediate aftermath of a default could see EUR/$ fall three big figures. The ensuing acceleration in QE would then take EUR/$ down another seven big figures in subsequent weeks. We thus see Greece as a catalyst for EUR/$ to go near parity, via stepped up QE that moves rate differentials against the single currency.

 

Incidentally, "internal devaluation" is a very polite way of saying plunging wages, labor costs, and generally benefits, including pensions.

But if this is correct, Goldman essentially says that it is in the ECB's, and Europe's, best interest to have a Greek default - and with limited contagion at that - one which finally does impact the EUR lower, and resumes the "benign" glideslope of the EURUSD exchange rate toward parity, a rate which recall reached as low as 1.05 several months ago before rebounding to its current level of 1.14.  Needless to say, that is a "conspiracy theory" that could make even the biggest "tin foil" blogs blush.

A different way of saying what Goldman just hinted at: "Greece must be destroyed, so it (and the Eurozone) can be saved (with even more QE)."

Or, in the parlance of Rahm Emanuel's times, "Let no Greek default crisis go to QE wastel."

Goldman continues:

Greece, like many emerging markets before it, is suffering a balance of payments crisis, whereby a “sudden stop” in foreign capital inflows caused GDP to fall sharply. In emerging markets, this comes with a large upfront currency devaluation – on average around 30 percent across nine key episodes (Exhibit 1) – that lasts for over four years. This devaluation boosts exports, so that – as unpleasant as this phase of the crisis is – activity rebounds quickly and GDP is significantly above pre-crisis levels five years on (Exhibit 2). In Greece, although unit labor costs have fallen significantly, price competitiveness has improved much less, with the real effective exchange rate down only ten percent (with much of that drop only coming recently). This shows that the process of “internal devaluation” is difficult and, unfortunately, a poor substitute for outright devaluation. The reason we emphasize this is because, even if a compromise is found that includes a debt write-down (as the Greek government is pushing for), this will do little to return Greece to growth. Only a managed devaluation can do that, one where the creditors continue to lend and help manage the transition.

Here, Goldman does something shocking - it tells the truth! "As such, the current stand-off is about something much deeper than the next disbursement. It signals that the concept of “internal devaluation” is deeply troubled."

Bingo - because what Goldman just said in a very polite way, is that a monetary union in which one of the nations is as far behind as Greece is, and recall just how far behind Greece is relative to IMF GDP estimates imposed during the prior two bailouts...

... simply does not work, and for the union to be viable, a stressor needs to emerge so that broad currency devaluation benefits not only the peak performers, i.e., the northern European states, but the weakest links such as Greece.

Incidentally, all of this was previewed long ago in, in December 2012 when we wrote "Next Up For A "Recovering" Europe: A 30-50% Collapse In Wages In Spain, Italy And... France." To Greece's great chagrin, all of this internal devaluation has mostly impacted the impoverished country, which continues to be a shock absorber to broader internal devaluation across the entire Eurozone.

Which brings us back to Goldman's assessment of the current Greek state, and the suggestion that all the smoke and mirrors flooding the headline-scanning algos is nothing but noise, and that in reality the forces are alligned to "push the EUR near parity in fairly short order."

Paradoxically, Goldman keeps pushing for a worst-case outcome, and one where the market finally reprices all the risk it has ignored for months:

Even if Greece ultimately stays in the Euro (our base case), the immediate aftermath of such a non-payment will be to push bond yields up across the periphery. This rise in the fiscal risk premium (Exhibit 3) will of course be limited, because the ECB will likely accelerate QE, including via the Bundesbank. That will push rate differentials, especially longer-dated ones (Exhibit 4),against EUR/$. We estimate that the initial fiscal risk premium effect could be three big figures, while the subsequent QE effect could be worth around seven big figures.

The conclusion:

In short, we see mounting tensions over Greece as a catalyst for EUR/$ to move near parity in fairly short order, with much of that move driven by rate differentials. If, instead, a compromise solution is found (including possible debt haircuts), we see the upside to EUR/$ as very limited, i.e. on the order of one big figure at most. The reason for this is that the market is broadly expecting an agreement to be found, even with the possibility of a default in the near term on debt repayments coming due.

And of course, going back to the start of the note, a "favorable" outcome pushing EUR higher will be one that "will do little to return Greece to growth" and as a result will force the insolvent nation back to the negotiating table until such time as the Eurozone finally realizes that it desperately needs EUR much lower, not higher, and will do everything it can to achieve that, even if it means "siloing" Greece in a state of suspended default indefinitely if only to eliminate the "risk on" euphoria in the currency pair.

Indeed, as we said last year, the entire escalation over the Ukraine conflict was merely to push Europe to the verge of a triple-dip recession, which in turn was the catalyst that finally greenlighted the ECB's first episode of QE with Buba's blessing (after all Germany's economy was finally on the brink as well and it had little to lose). Well, the next such "catalyst" will come from none other than Greece as per Goldman's punchline:

We encounter many who argue that mounting tensions over Greece could be Euro positive. The short term angle is that risk reduction will lead to a squeeze of Euro shorts, so that EUR/$ could squeeze higher. The reason we don’t believe this is because we think stepped up ECB QE will dominate any risk-off response. Or, to put this in another way, the ECB will not allow the fiscal risk premium to go all that much higher. The medium-term angle is that the Euro zone might be more cohesive without Greece. That rationale assumes that Greece is a case apart, when of course it isn’t. After all, the Spanish unemployment rate is not far behind that of Greece and populist political pressure is also building. The underlying commonality, in our minds, is that “internal devaluation” is very difficult. As a result, we think mounting tensions around Greece could just as well focus market attention on the sustainability of the adjustment program on the Euro periphery.

Whoever would have thought that none other than Goldman would serve as the source of what may be the biggest "conspiracy theory" gambit of 2015...

One final thought: what Goldman wants, its former employee at the ECB tends to deliver. 

Dad Calls Cops On Son To Teach Him A Lesson, Cops Shoot Son Dead

dad-son-truck-teach-lesson-police

James Comstock just wanted to let his son know that taking his truck without asking was serious business. He wanted to give his son a good “scare” so he called the police, to ask them to talk some sense into him, and let him know that he could get in real trouble for doing somethinglike that.

“He took off with my truck. I call the police, and they kill him. It was over a damn pack of cigarettes. I wouldn’t buy him none, and I lose my son for that” Comstock said.

That “damn pack of cigarettes” led to 19-year-old Tyler taking his dad’s truck and running off.

James knew his son needed to understand that there are consequences to one’s actions. He figured the police would help him teach his son a “lesson.”

But teaching Tyler a “lesson” ended up with the teen being shot dead on the nearby Iowa State University campus.

Now, Tyler’s family wants to know why the police were so quick to fire on an unarmed teenager?

James said that the truck belonged to a lawn care company that he works for. He couldn’t just have his son running off with that vehicle, as it could get him in trouble.

He explained all of this to the 911 dispatcher, letting them know that Tyler hadn’t “stolen” the vehicle in a traditional sense, but he needed to understand that he could not “borrow” the vehicle without permission.

The truck came to a stop when officers pulled him over. He was never driving the vehicle towards them. In fact, the officers never even tried to make such a claim.

Instead, they admit that they opened fire when Tyler failed to turn off the vehicle.

Officer McPherson fired six rounds hitting the teen through the glass, according to the Iowa state medical examiner.

James reaffirmed to The Des Moines Register that he told the dispatcher his son was definitely unarmed.

Tyler’s step-grandfather, Gary Shepley, 65, insisters that “hard tough questions” have to be asked by the community now, regarding the police use of force, especially against teenagers and those who they can clearly tell are unarmed.

“So he didn’t shut the damn truck off, so let’s fire six rounds at him? We’re confused, and we don’t understand. They’re professionals. They’re trained to handle these situations. And if they panic before they even know what’s going on, then ask yourself: What if it was your child?” he asked.

Was this a legitimate police use of force? Let us know what you think! 

FDA & FTC mull homeopathy's future


Both the UK and Australian governments have issued reports describing homeopathy as bunk, and now the US Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission are holding hearings on the regulation of high-priced sugar-pills.

In the USA, homeopathy benefits from a unique regulatory regime that allows its "remedies" to be marketed as having health benefits without the normal testing regimes other alleged medicines must face before they are allowed to make similar claims.

The FDA's hearings have been dominated by homeopathy's advocates, but their opponents from the reality-based medicine camp have had an impressive outing.

The two strongest witnesses at the hearing for reality-based medicine, as Mark Crislip would call it, were Michael DeDora of the Center for Inquiry, and Adriane Fugh-Berman, Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Physiology and the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University Medical Center.

Fugh-Berman is concerned about stocking homeopathic products on the shelves right next to other OTC drugs because, in her view, most consumers and medical professionals have no idea what homeopathic remedies are, don’t know they aren’t reviewed for safety and efficacy, and likely think they are dietary supplements or conventional OTC drugs. Nor does their dilution necessarily make them harmless, a point that was confirmed by Edward Krenzelok of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center in his remarks. For example, according to Fugh-Berman, Cold-EEZE contains 13.3 milligrams of zinc per lozenge. At recommended six lozenges a day, that’s about 80 milligrams of zinc a day, or ten times the RDA for adult females, eight times the RDA for males. As well, she said, products can contain snake venom, heavy metals, controlled substances, glandular extracts and other potentially dangerous ingredients.

Fugh-Bergman, who pointed out that the evidence for homeopathy is “between scant and nil,” wants to see the labels accurately describe the ingredients and their amounts in the same language used for other drugs and dietary supplements rather than the obscure vocabulary of homeopathy. She noted that, at some level of dilution, this would require expression of amounts in terms like “less than .01 nanograms.”

Homeopathic industry and its acolytes make poor showing before FDA [Jann Bellamy/Science Based Medicine]

(via /.)

(Image: Homeopathic332, Wikidudeman, public domain)

'Huge' explosions and gunfire outside Afghan parliament

A Taliban suicide bomber and six gunmen attacked the Afghan parliament on Monday, wounding around 25 people and sending a plume of black smoke across Kabul, as a second district in two days fell to the Islamist group in the north. 

The attack on the symbolic centre of power, one of the most brazen in years, along with a series of Taliban gains elsewhere, raise questions about the Nato-trained Afghan security forces' ability to cope.


Afghan Police secure the scene of an attack by Taliban militants (EPA)

"A suicide bomber blew himself up just outside the parliament building and several fighters took positions in a building close to parliament," said Ebadullah Karimi, spokesman for Kabul police.

Afghan security officials said the attackers were unable to enter the parliament itself and two gunmen were reportedly killed on sight.