Friday, August 23, 2013


The Surprising Reason Americans Are Far Less Healthy Than Others in Developed Nations

Americans are losing ground globally “by every” health measure, and it's not why you might think.
 

Let’s talk life expectancy.
The stats first. They tell a shocking story: Americans now live shorter lives than men and women in most of the rest of the developed world. And that gap is growing.
Back in 1990, shouts  a new study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the United States ranked a lowly 20th on life expectancy among 34 major industrial nations. The United States now ranks 27th — despite spending much more on health care than any other nation.
Americans, notes the AMA journal, are losing ground globally “by every” health measure.
Media reports  on this new study blamed all the usual suspects for America’s disappointing health: poor personal health habits, inadequate access to health care, and just plain poverty.
If Americans exercised more and ate and smoked less, this conventional wisdom holds, the United States would surely start moving up in the global health rankings.
But many epidemiologists — scientists who study health outcomes — have their doubts.  They point outthat the United States ranked as one of the world’s healthiest nations back in the 1950s, a time when Americans smoked heavily, ate a diet that would horrify any 21st-century nutritionist, and hardly ever exercised.
Poor Americans, then as now, had chronic problems accessing health care. But poverty, epidemiologists note, can’t explain why fully insured middle-income Americans today have significantly worse health outcomes than their middle-income counterparts in other rich nations.
The University of Washington’s Dr. Stephen Bezruchka  has been tracking these outcomes since the 1990s. The new research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Bezruchka tells me, should worry Americans at all income levels.
“Even if we are rich, college-educated, white-skinned, and practice all the right health behaviors,” he notes, “similar people in other rich nations will live longer.”
A dozen years ago, Bezruchka published in Newsweek the first American  mass-media commentary to challenge the conventional take on poor U.S. global health rankings.
To really understand America’s poor health standing globally, epidemiologists like Bezruchka posit, we need to look at those social and economic realities that define our daily lives, what scientists call “the social determinants of health.”
And none of these determinants matter more, these researchers contend, than economic inequality, the divide between the affluent and everyone else.  Over 170 studies worldwide have so far linked income inequality to health outcomes. The more unequal a modern society, the studies show, the more unhealthy most everyone in it — and not the poor alone.
Just how does inequality translate into unhealthy outcomes? Growing numbers of researchers see stress as the culprit. The more inequality in a society, the more stress. Chronic stress, over time, wears down our immune systems and leaves us more vulnerable to disease.
This same stress drives people to seek relief in unhealthy habits. They may do drugs or smoke — or eat more “comfort foods” packed with sugar and fat.
Can the United States change course on health?
Japan offers an encouraging precedent. Sixty years ago, Japan ranked as a deeply unequal and unhealthy nation. But, since the 1950s, Japan has become one of the world’s most equal places and, on life expectancy, now ranks number one globally.
The United States, over the same span of time, has gone in the exact opposite direction. We have become the world’s most unequal major nation, with health outcomes  among the developed world’s worst.
How can we turn this around? Most Americans, Stephen Bezruchka notes, already understand the concept of “vital signs.” We feel their importance “every time we step on a scale at the doctor’s office or feel a blood pressure cuff tighten.”

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

FISA Judge Accuses NSA Violates 4th Amendment





Secret Court Castigated N.S.A. on Surveillance




WASHINGTON — A federal judge sharply rebuked the National Security Agency in 2011 for repeatedly misleading the court that oversees its surveillance on domestic soil, including a program that is collecting tens of thousands of domestic e-mails and other Internet communications of Americans each year, according to a secret ruling made public on Wednesday.
The 85-page ruling by Judge John D. Bates, then serving as chief judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, involved an N.S.A. programthat systematically searches the contents of Americans’ international Internet communications, without a warrant, in a hunt for discussions about foreigners who have been targeted for surveillance.
The Justice Department had told Judge Bates that N.S.A. officials had discovered that the program had also been gathering domestic messages for three years. Judge Bates found that the agency had violated the Constitution and declared the problems part of a pattern of misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret court.
The release of the ruling, the subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, was the latest effort by the Obama administration to gain control over revelations about N.S.A. surveillance prompted by leaks by the former agency contractor Edward J. Snowden.
The collection is part of a broader program under a 2008 law that allows warrantless surveillance on domestic networks as long as it is targeted at noncitizens abroad. The purely domestic messages collected in the hunt for discussions about targeted foreigners represent a relatively small percentage of what the ruling said were 250 million communications intercepted each year in that broader program.
While the N.S.A. fixed problems with how it handled those purely domestic messages to the court’s satisfaction, the 2011 ruling revealed further issues.
“The court is troubled that the Government’s revelations regarding N.S.A.’s acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program,” Judge Bates wrote.
One of the examples, was redacted in the ruling. Another involved a separate N.S.A. program that keeps logs of all domestic phone calls, which the court approved in 2006 and which came to light in June as a result of leaks by Mr. Snowden.
In March 2009, a footnote said, the surveillance court learned that N.S.A. analysts were using the phone log database in ways that went beyond what the judges believed to be the practice because of a “repeated inaccurate statements” in government filings to the court.
“Contrary to the government’s repeated assurances, N.S.A. had been routinely running queries of the metadata using querying terms that did not meet the standard for querying,” Judge Bates recounted. He cited a 2009 ruling that concluded that the requirement had been “so frequently and systematically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall ... regime has never functioned effectively.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a free speech and privacy rights group, sued to obtain the ruling after Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, fought last summer to declassify the basic fact that the (FISA) surveillance court had ruled that the N.S.A. had violated the Fourth Amendment (of the Constitution).
In a statement, Mr. Wyden — an outspoken critic of N.S.A. surveillance — said declassification of the ruling was “long overdue.” He argued that while the N.S.A. had increased privacy protections for purely domestic and unrelated communications that were swept up in the surveillance, the collection itself “was a serious violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
Mark Rumold of the Electronic Frontier Foundation praised the administration for releasing the document with relatively few redactions, although he criticized the time and the difficulty in obtaining it. But he also said the ruling showed the surveillance court was not equipped to perform adequate oversight of the N.S.A.
“This opinion illustrates that the way the (FISA) court is structured now it cannot serve as an effective check on the N.S.A. because it’s wholly dependent on the representations that the N.S.A. makes to it,” Mr. Rumold said. “It has no ability to investigate. And it’s clear that the N.S.A. representations have not been entirely candid to the court.”

A senior intelligence official, speaking to reporters in a conference call, portrayed the ruling as showing that N.S.A. oversight was robust and serious. He said that some 300 N.S.A. employees were assigned to seek out even inadvertent violations of the rules and that the court conducted “vigorous” oversight.

The ruling focused on a program under 

which the N.S.A. has been searching 

domestic Internet links for 

communications — where at least one 

side is overseas — in which there are 

“strong selectors” indicating insider 

knowledge of someone who has been 

targeted for foreign-intelligence 

collection. One example would be 

mentioning a person’s private e-

mail address in the body of an e-mail.


Most of the time, the system brings up single 

communications, like an e-mail or text message. But 

sometimes many messages are packaged and travel in a 

bundle that the N.S.A. calls “multi-communication 

transactions.”

A senior intelligence official gave one example: a Web page 

for a private e-mail in-box that displays subject lines for 

dozens of different messages — each of which is considered a 

separate communication, and only one of which may discuss 

the person who has been targeted for intelligence 

collection.


While Judge Bates ruled that it was acceptable for the N.S.A. 

to collect and store such bundled communications, he said 

the agency was not doing enough to minimize the purely 

domestic and unrelated messages to protect Americans’ 

privacy. In response, the N.S.A. agreed to filter out such 

communications and store them apart, with greater 

protections, and to delete them after two years 

instead of the usual five.

A Justice Department “white paper” released with the ruling 

shed new light on N.S.A. surveillance of communications 

streaming across domestic telecommunications networks. 

Such “upstream” collection, which still must be targeted at or 

be about non-citizens abroad, accounts for about 10 percent 

of all the Internet messages collected in the United States, it 

said; the other 90 percent are obtained from Internet 

companies under the system the N.S.A. calls Prism.

The administration also released a partly redacted 

semiannual report

 about “compliance” incidents, or mistakes involving the 

privacy rights of Americans or people in the United States. It 

found that there had been no willful violations of the rules, 

and that fewer than 1 percent of queries by analysts involved 

errors.

The document also showed that the government recently 

changed the rules to allow N.S.A. and C.I.A. analysts to 

 search its databases of recorded calls and e-mails 

using search terms designed to find information 

involving American citizens, not foreigners — an issue 

that has long concerned Senator Wyden

and that was mentioned in a document leaked by Mr. 

Snowden and published by The Guardian.

The number of “selectors” designed to filter out and store 

communications targeted at foreigners had gone up steadily, 

the document said, although the numbers were redacted. 

And its increase is expected to “accelerate” because the 

F.B.I.  recently made the ability to nominate people  

for such collection “more widely available to its field office 

personnel.”



Stop & Frisk

"Arbitrary and Uncalled For"

BF8 21 13(Photo: longislandwins)EUGENE ROBINSON 
FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Washington -  For all who believe in colorblind justice -- and want to see fewer African-American and Hispanic men caught up in the system -- there are two items of good news: a judge's ruling ordering changes in New York's "stop and frisk" policy and Attorney General Eric Holder's initiative to keep nonviolent drug offenders out of prison.
First, "stop and frisk." Mayor Michael Bloomberg is having a hissy fit over U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin's finding that the policy amounted to "indirect racial profiling." On his weekly radio show, the mayor wouldn't even say Scheindlin's name, calling her "some woman" who knows "absolutely zero" about policing. In an op-ed article for The Washington Post, Bloomberg went so far as to accuse Scheindlin of being "ideologically driven."
If and when Bloomberg calms down, I'd like to ask him the fundamental question posed -- not in these words, of course -- by Scheindlin's ruling: Would it kill you to stop and frisk some white guys, too?
Blacks and Hispanics make up about half of New York City's population but were targeted in 86 percent of the 532,911 "stops" last year under Bloomberg's policy, which encourages police to detain and search individuals if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person "committed, is committing, or is about to commit" a crime. The reason most often cited for a stop is that the individual made "furtive" movements.
In nine out of 10 cases, the person is stopped -- and sometimes frisked -- but no evidence is found of any offense. Bloomberg argues that this kind of proactive policing actually prevents crime, and he credits "stop and frisk" for making New York the safest big city in the country.
I'm all for safe streets. I'm also aware that there is no consensus crediting "stop and frisk" with any impact on the crime rate, but I'm willing to accept the premise that an active police presence can deter criminals. My problem is that African-Americans and Hispanics are being singled out disproportionately for these arbitrary searches.
Bloomberg says this is because most violent crime occurs in black and Hispanic neighborhoods, with black and Hispanic victims. By all means, police should continue walking and cruising these beats. But the numbers indicate that African-Americans and Hispanics are being given too much "stop and frisk" scrutiny -- and that whites are being given too little.
According to an analysis by the New York Civil Liberties Union, blacks and Hispanics who are stopped are more likely than whites to be frisked. But just 2 percent of blacks and Hispanics who are frisked are discovered to be carrying weapons, while 4 percent of whites who are frisked have weapons. So if the aim is to find illegal guns, police should frisk more whites.
Why such fuss over a few minutes of inconvenience and indignity? Because blacks and Hispanics who come into contact with the criminal justice system for any reason are more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted than whites, and are likely to serve longer prison sentences.
Of more than 26,000 stops last year for alleged marijuana offenses, for example, 61 percent were of African-Americans and only 9 percent were of whites. But surveys show that whites are equally or more likely to be marijuana users. Police don't find white potheads because they're not looking for them.
We know that nationwide, according to federal figures, African-Americans are four times as likely as whites to be arrested, charged and imprisoned for minor drug offenses. Once young black and Hispanic men enter the criminal justice system, too often they become trapped in a loop of incarceration, release, unemployment and recidivism.
On the national level, Holder has taken direct aim at this vicious cycle with the announcement last week that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders will no longer face federal charges that carry long mandatory prison sentences.
Holder is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors and also supporting legislation that has received bipartisan support in the Senate, where some conservatives now see excessive prison terms as a waste of money.
"We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate, not merely to warehouse and to forget," Holder said in a speech to the American Bar Association. President Obama is expected to make prison reform one of his priorities this fall.
Ending the presumption that African-American and Hispanic men are beyond redemption would be a powerful legacy for the first black president and the first black attorney general to leave behind.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

CWA Joins Immigration Groups at GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy's Office


Thousands of Immigration Reform Advocates Descend on Rep. McCarthy's Office

Share This Article: Facebook Twitter More...
3_Bakersfield_D9
CWA District 9 activists march to Rep. Kevin McCarthy's office.
Below: CWA members call on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
3_Bakersfield_CWA_Signs
It was the largest caravan in California history.
Thousands of workers and immigrant-rights advocates from dozens of California cities traveled by bus, car and motorcycle to Bakersfield to call on GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy to pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. McCarthy, the third-ranking Republican in the House, serves as majority whip and has a huge influence over whether immigration reform will get a vote.
CWA locals 9003, 9423, 9408, 9416, 9415, 9505, 9509, 9412, 9511, 9586, 9119, 59053 and 9510 joined other labor unions, faith organizations, students, LGBT groups, human rights leaders, elected officials and other allies on "The Path to Citizenship Goes through Bakersfield." Activists ended their caravan in a city park before marching to McCarthy's office.
It was the latest action in a series of rallies, sit-ins and protests across the country, as Republican lawmakers visit their home districts during the August recess.

This March on Washington is as Necessary as 1963


Time to March on Washington - Again

Tuesday, 20 August 2013 13:42By Ari BermanThe Nation | News Analysis
Hundreds of thousands descended on Washington, D.C.'s, Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963.Hundreds of thousands descended on Washington, D.C.'s, Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963. (Photo: US Government)They carried signs that demanded “Voting Rights,” “Jobs for All” and “Decent Housing.” They protested the vigilante killing of an unarmed black teenager in the South and his killer’s acquittal. They denounced racial profiling in the country’s largest city.

This isn’t 1963 but 2013, when so many of the issues that gave rise to the March on Washington fifty years ago remain unfulfilled or under siege today. That’s why, on August 24, a broad coalition of civil rights organizations, unions, progressive groups and Democratic Party leaders will rally at the Lincoln Memorial and proceed to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial to honor the fiftieth anniversary of the march and dramatize the contemporary fight. (President Obama will participate in a separate event commemorating the official anniversary on August 28.) The Supreme Court’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act in late June and the acquittal of George Zimmerman less than three weeks later make this year’s march “exponentially more urgent” with respect to pressuring Congress and arousing the conscience of the nation, says Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, a co-sponsor of the march.
“The main themes will be voting rights, state laws like ‘stand your ground’ or local laws like stop-and-frisk, and the whole question of jobs and union-busting,” says the Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, who convened the march along with Martin Luther King III. “Fifty years after the original march for jobs and justice, we have a new version of the same issue.”
In 1963, current Congressman John Lewis—who nearly died marching for voting rights in Selma, Alabama—was the youngest and most radical speaker at the March on Washington. When Lewis returns to the Lincoln Memorial to address the rally on August 24, he will be the only surviving speaker from that historic afternoon. “We have come a great distance since that day,” he said recently, “but many of the issues that gave rise to that march are still pressing needs in our society—violence, poverty, hunger, long-term unemployment, homelessness, voting rights and the need to protect human dignity.”
When it comes to voting rights, seven Southern states have passed or implemented new restrictions that disproportionately target people of color since the Court’s Voting Rights Act ruling. This follows a presidential election in which voter-suppression efforts took center stage and blacks waited twice as long as whites to vote, on average. On a more structural level, one out of thirteen African-Americans (2.2 million people) cannot vote because of felon disenfranchisement laws—four times higher than the rest of the population.
When it comes to the criminal justice system, there are more black men in prison today than were enslaved in 1850, according to Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow. African-Americans comprise 13 percent of the population but made up 55 percent of shooting deaths in 2010. Under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, “people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time,” according to the Tampa Bay Times.
When it comes to the economy, the black unemployment rate (12.6 percent) is nearly double that of whites (6.6 percent), almost the same ratio as in 1963. The average household income for African-Americans ($32,068) lags well below that of white families ($54,620) and declined by 15 percent from 2000 to 2010.
These jarring statistics show a clear need for a twenty-first-century civil rights movement. “After the march, my hope is we will see more people going home being committed to doing work in their communities,” says Judith Browne Dianis, co-
director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization in Washington co-sponsoring the march. The Moral Mondays protests in North Carolina, the sit-ins by the Dream Defenders in Florida and the spontaneous rallies in 100 cities following the George Zimmerman verdict are evidence of a new wave of civil rights activism. “We’re seeing the civil rights movement rise again,” says Browne Dianis. “People understand that we have to get back to organizing and movement-building.”
For many years, civil rights organizations like the NAACP focused on building institutional power through litigation, lobbying and voting. Though they accomplished a great deal—we now have a two-term African-American president, after all—there’s a growing realization within the civil rights community that the protests and civil disobedience that defined the movement of the 1960s are once again essential to draw more attention to contemporary problems. “I wish this activism had more outbursts than just in North Carolina and Florida,” says civil rights veteran Julian Bond. “You wish it was twenty times as great, but to see these things that are going on—it’s exciting. These tactics are tried and true. They’ve worked in the past, and they’ll work now.”
Yet while the civil rights coalition is more diverse than it was in 1963—now including supporters from women’s rights, environmental, pro-immigration and LGBT groups—the funds are scarce today, even as the needs are growing. The declining strength of organized labor, which has accelerated following the passage of anti-union laws in GOP-controlled states since 2010, has drained the coffers of the organizations most accustomed to mobilizing masses of people. “The movement is more financially 
strapped than it has been in modern memory,” says Jealous.
Another daunting obstacle for the civil rights coalition is the right wing’s success in promoting the notion that historic remedies for centuries of discrimination, like the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action, are no longer needed. “One of the great difficulties we have in helping people understand where we are on civil rights today is the desire of so many people to fix the civil rights movement in historical amber and visit it like a museum, without honoring that movement by being dynamically engaged in the principles that the movement stood for,” says Sherrilyn Ifill, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, another co-sponsor of the march.
At a recent congressional celebration of the 1963 march at the US Capitol, for example, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell reminisced about attending the march as a young civil rights activist, and House Speaker John Boehner introduced John Lewis. But when Senate majority leader Harry Reid denounced the flood of new voting restrictions in places like North Carolina and Texas following the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision and called for a congressional fix—to great applause—
McConnell and Boehner remained pointedly silent. “Boehner turned to McConnell with a questioning glance during the applause,” reported the Associated Press.
“You cannot, on the one hand, celebrate the march like John Boehner did, but then undermine what the march stood for, which is jobs and justice,” says Sharpton. “You can’t take a movement and say, ‘I celebrate the drama, but I don’t agree with the content.’”
At the same time, some progressive skeptics of the Obama administration believe the current civil rights leadership is too timid and cozy with those in power. Talk-show host Tavis Smiley predicts the new march will sidestep issues, like systemic poverty and the escalation of drone strikes, that King would have confronted were he alive today. “We’re going to get a lot of platitudes, a lot of great stories, a lot of endearing moments,” Smiley says. “But at the end of the day, we won’t even scratch the surface of the issues King was trying to get us to wrestle with.”
The radical politics of the 1960s civil rights movement, including those of its most mainstream leaders, is often glossed over in contemporary remembrances of pivotal anniversaries. Professor Cornel West, a caustic critic of this year’s commemoration, calls it the “Santa Clausification” of King. Many people also forget just how controversial the march was in 1963, both among the public and inside the civil rights community. Some thought it was too radical. President Kennedy asked the leaders to cancel the march. Lewis’s speech was censored to placate the archbishop of Washington. Bayard Rustin, the veteran socialist and civil rights activist who organized the event, was ostracized within the movement because of his homosexuality. Others thought it was too tame; Malcolm X dubbed it the “Farce on Washington.”
Despite all the criticism, the 1963 march remains a singularly important event in American history: the first time the country really understood what the civil rights movement stood for. The effect was greatest on the marchers themselves. “Many of the people at the march had never been to Washington before,” says Bond. “It was evidence to them that they had done something great and that great things would follow.”
Fifty years later, “there is, unfortunately, too much parallel between now and then,” says Jealous. “This is a moment for all of us to be rebaptized in the struggle.”