Germans WW1 Interest

From the DW:

"Germany's youth wants to learn more about First World War"

As the First World War's centennial approaches, German youth have shown a growing interest in the conflict. According to a study, 77 percent of those under 30 want to know more. But the subject is neglected in schools. The year 1914 has been featured prominently on magazine covers, in articles and on announcements for films and exhibitions. Interest in the First World War, which broke out exactly 100 years ago this summer, has also been demonstrated in a new survey by the pollster Forsa. The overwhelming majority of Germans are interested in the subject, particularly the younger 14 to 29 generation. Deutsche Welle's social media posts about the war - via Facebook, Google+ and Twitter - have also proven popular among users, who are often young people. But why does a historical event so far removed from the world of today's adolescents and young adults stoke so much interest among them? Psychologist Carlos Kölbl, from the University of Bayreuth, is not surprised by their fascination with World War I. "It could be that many high school students learn comparatively little about the First World War and therefore say that they want to know more," Kölbl told DW.

The Second World War, and above all National Socialism, dominates modern German society's historical-cultural discourse. In contrast, the period from 1914-1918 is often ignored and neglected. Kölbl researches the historical consciousness of young people and can imagine that discussion of the First World War can lift a certain burden off of them. While it's clear that Germany - with its invasion of Poland in 1939 - started the Second World War, responsibility for the outbreak of World War I is not so cut and dry. "Above all right now, there's a new conversation going that says Germany isn't solely responsible for the outbreak of the First World War," said Kölbl, referencing the book "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went Wrong in 1914," by the Australian historian Christopher Clark.

According to Ulrich Bongertmann, WWI, often referred to as the Great War, is one of those subjects where controversial academic theses and different opinions can be integrated into the classroom. But even though students are interested in the subject, that is not always easy because they often don't have enough background knowledge of the conflict. "The complexity of the question of responsibility [for the war] cannot be examined in one school-book page or in a 45-minute lecture," Bongertmann said. Nevertheless, Bongertmann views the critical examination of these questions as tremendously important for society. According to him, it's about society's collective interaction with history.

"That means that looking to the past serves as a way to provide orientation in the present - in a political, but also in a moral sense," Bongertmann said. In Bongertmann's experience, young people are very open to these discussions. But classroom lectures often don't integrate the background and heritage of the students into the conversation. For example, girls often have a different perspective of history than boys. And a German student might have a different view on a historical subject than a student with Turkish, Russian, or Serbian roots. "These aspects, which have to do with a globalized world, play too small of a role in the research on historical consciousness," he said. "What does it mean when someone has an immigrant background? What is that person's interest in history?"

The school classroom offers the chance to approach historical events from diverse perspectives, he said. But one has to try to integrate students' migratory background into the conversation, and the First World War provides enough opportunities for that. But one has to be sensitive. "It can get heated quickly, for example in the context of the Ottoman Empire's war crimes against the Armenians," he said. "For many students with Turkish backgrounds that's a taboo." Bongertmann hopes that the First World War's centennial will stir students' interest in older history. There are enough anniversaries this year to keep students engaged: The Second World War broke out 75 years ago and the Berlin Wall was torn down 25 years ago.

^ I can understand why young Germans are so interested in learning about World War 1 - especially during the 100 year anniversary this year. Even though Germany was on the loosing side it was a war that still focused on going after the military (ie soldiers) rather than civilians. Of course, there were war crimes committed against innocent men, women and children, but they were the exception rather than the official rule. More time should be focused on teaching Germans about World War 2 as Germany was not only the one who started the conflict, but they were the ones who moved the war from attacking the military/soldiers of other places to officially targeting civilians (thus moving from the exception during World War 1 to the rule during World War 2.) That is a huge difference and one that needs to be ingrained in future German generations to make sure it is never allowed to happen again. ^

http://www.dw.de/germanys-youth-wants-to-learn-more-about-first-world-war/a-17373053

Sports Translation

From MT:

"Sports Fans Must Translate Foreign Language Banners Under New Russian Law"

A new law aimed at tackling hooliganism at sporting events in Russia contains a number of bizarre stipulations, one of which requires fans to provide notarized translations for banners carrying foreign messages. Russian football has been marred by a number of serious disturbances in the stands over the last year and a half and the so-called law on fans, which came into effect this week, was drawn up largely to prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents.  Flares and provocative banners have been outlawed at events, while stewards will be hired to help police supervise spectators. A blacklist of fans who are prohibited from attending sporting events for up to seven years will be created, and fines of 15,000 rubles ($442) will be given to offenders who flout the ban. Fans are also forbidden from covering their faces with masks, according to the law, which appeared on the government's website last month. But while the law contains a lot of unquestionably reasonable regulations for fans' behavior, it also sets out provisions that supporters could take exception to, such as requiring notarized translations of foreign language banners. It is unclear whether languages native to certain Russian republics, such as Chechen or Udmurt, will be considered "foreign." If they are, then fans of Chechen football club Terek Grozny, for example, would have to find a notary ahead of matches if they want to display banners with messages written in their native language, blogger Vladimir Varfolomeyev wrote on his LiveJournal blog. It could also affect supporters of foreign sporting organizations whose teams are competing in Russia, not to mention visitors to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi who want to support their countrymen and women with cleverly written slogans. Security staff at sporting events will also have to be equipped with measuring tapes, now that stringent size restrictions on flags and banners have also been adopted. Various wind instruments like the vuvuzela, a plastic horn that drove visiting fans to despair at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, have been banned, though horns and flutes are acceptable. Restrictions on drums and megaphones are also included. Furthermore, the law now guarantees spectators the right to free access to toilets at Russia's venues. Alexander Shprygin, president of the All-Russia Fans Organization, said he was satisfied that some of the more extreme regulations proposed by "hot head" lawmakers, such as requiring supporters to display their passports when buying tickets for football matches, were not implemented.
However, he expressed concern that the punishments for differing indiscretions are not set in stone and will be left to the discretion of judges, Gazeta.ru reported Monday. "In terms of traffic law, if you are not wearing a seatbelt, it's one punishment, and if you are drunk behind the wheel, then it's another. Here, everything is up to the judge, whether you shout obscenities or you run onto the pitch and interrupt the match." Members of various football supporters associations have criticized the law for being too harsh, but the president of the Russian Football Premier League, Sergei Pryadkin, thinks that it is wrong to call the measures repressive, Rossiiskaya Gazeta reported Monday. "This law is directed against those who don't come to support football, but to take out some sort of revenge or prove something to someone," Pryadkin said.

^ I can understand banning known sport hooligans, but to require a notarized translation of signs is pretty ridiculous especially at international events like the Olympics or the World Cup.

^http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/sports-fans-must-translate-foreign-language-banners-under-new-russian-law/493108.html

Postal Staples

From GMC:

"US Postal Union Peeved at Staples for Threatening Jobs"

Would you rather do your mailing at:

A.) The Post Office

B.) Staples

C.) What's mail?

If you answered B, you're in luck, because the Post Office has plans to cut lines and add more hours by offering mailing services at Staples stores. If you answered C, you are one reason why the Postal Service is losing billions of dollars every year.  The embattled U.S. Postal Service, which has been mostly unable to convince Congress to make changes to put it on a firm financial footing by offering extra services and cutting underused local offices, says the Staples deal would be a win-win for customers and employees.  While Staples stores might not be the happiest places on earth, at least they're open at time when local post offices aren't, says Dave Partenheimer, a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Service is betting that customers will appreciate the convenience of going to their local Staples store for products and service offered at the same prices as their local postal office. "Today is a perfect example. It's a federal holiday so our Post Offices are closed," Partenheimer said. "But in those alternative access places customers can still buy stamps, mail packages, and take care of other postal business today. The same is true for Sundays at many of those locations."  As nice as all this might sound for customers, the postal union says this idea should be returned to sender.  On Friday, postal service union leaders delivered angry letters to Staples stores in California that are participating in a pilot program that provides mailing services in more locations for customers.  "Only U.S. Postal Service postal employees are fully accountable to the public, and sworn to uphold the sanctity of the mail," the letter said.  Whether the weekly mailers for your local Piggly Wiggly have sanctity is open for debate. And while the American Postal Workers Union is peeved that these retail centers are not staffed by union workers, Partenheimer said that besides offering customers convenience, they're just one of the ways the postal service is trying to stem its net loss of $5 billion in its last fiscal year, the seventh consecutive year in the red.  How do Staples employees feel about the dispute? Not all of them are happy, especially about extended holiday extended hours. You know, the time of the year when folks want to mail packages the most. A Staples employee started a Change.org petition with about 8,400 signatures asking the company to remain closed on Thanksgiving.  The APWU said its delegation was "received and treated cordially at all stores except Berkeley," where "there has been a great deal of community opposition to USPS efforts to sell the historic post office."  A spokeswoman for Staples, headquartered outside Boston, Carrie McElwee referred ABC News to the USPS regarding concerns of union members. She said Staples "continually tests new products and services to better meet the needs of our customers," and the company doesn't provide details on pilot programs or agreements with vendors as a matter of policy. In November, the Postal Service launched this pilot program with 84 Staples stores in California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Georgia to provide postal products and services. Partenheimer said "no APWU jobs have been impacted by the pilot partnership with Staples."

 "The concept of this new retail partnership is a direct response to the changing expectations of customers who demand greater convenience," Partenheimer said. "That is why service providers, such as banks, dry cleaning, doctors and major retail chains are partnering together to provide that one-stop shopping experience that many customers demand."  He added that the Postal Service already has partnerships with more than 65,000 retailers to provide alternative access to postal products and services. Contract Postal Units and Village Post Offices have never been staffed by USPS employees, he said.  "The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses, and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. This retail partnership program could be an innovative step towards generating revenue to ensure the long-term viability of the Postal Service," Partenheimer said.

^ I love how the Postal Union says that they are the only ones accountable to the public. It's funny considering all the hassle those employees give to me and the rest of the public. Going to Staples instead of the USPS sounds good for the places that have one in their town. The nearest Staples to me is 45 minutes whereas the nearest USPS is 23 minutes away. While I don't care for the USPS and it's current practices I have to use them as they don't deliver packages to my house or mailbox. Other countries (ie Canada, Germany, etc) use retail stores as substitutes for their regular Post Offices. They are full-service and most you can even pickup your packages at. It seems to work there so maybe it can here. I think in the end the USPS needs to revert to full Federal control (as it was before the 1970s) and the Federal Government needs to come in and rebuild the whole infrastructure from top-down. Then maybe the USPS will not only make money, but treat it's customers correctly. ^

http://gma.yahoo.com/us-postal-union-peeved-staples-threatening-jobs-203000373--abc-news-personal-finance.html

Dictatorship Laws

From Wikipedia:

"Anti-protest laws in Ukraine"

On January 16, 2014, known popularly as Black Thursday, the Parliament of Ukraine ratified—and President Viktor Yanukovych signed into law the following day —a group of ten laws restricting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The laws were passed amid massive anti-government protests that started in November. The laws are collectively known as the "dictatorship laws" (Ukrainian: закони про диктатуру) by Euromaidan activists,  non-governmental organizations, and the Ukrainian media.  The opposition parties claimed the legislation was adopted with a number of procedural violations in what they described a coup d'etat. These laws have been described in the media and by experts as "draconian", and have effectively established the nation as a dictatorship. The laws were widely denounced internationally, with US Secretary of State John Kerry describing them as "anti-democratic". The laws were developed by MPs from the ruling Party of Regions Vadym Kolesnychenko and Volodymyr Oliynyk and supported a voting bloc consisting of the Party of Regions, Communist Party and some independent MPs. Western nations have criticised the bills for their undemocratic nature and their ability to significantly curb the rights to protest, free speech and the activity of non-governmental organisations. In accordance with enforcing the new laws, Interior Minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko pledged that "each offence will be met by our side harshly."

Provisions:

• Process of removal of parliamentary immunity during criminal proceedings was simplified to majority vote in the Verkhovna Rada. No longer requiring prior review by the relevant Parliamentary committee;
• Amnesty from prosecution previously adopted by the Verkhovna Rada (were inapplicable, expected to grant to peaceful protestors who participated in protests since November 21, 2013) has now been refined to be applicable and extended to also exempt from punishment those who committed crimes against protestors, including Berkut security forces and other law enforcement officials;
• Allowing trial in absentia of individuals, including prison terms, in cases where the person refuses to appear in court and when criminal proceedings in absence of such person are pronounced possible;
• Blocking access to residential buildings, up to six years in jail;
• Motorcade of more than 5 cars driving together if will cause traffic disruption, face loss of drivers license and vehicle for up to two years (unless obtained permission from the Ministry of Internal Affairs);
• Gathering and disseminating information about Berkut, judges or their families, up to 2 years in jail;
• Libel including via press or social media, up to one year in jail
• Law enforcement officials involved in similar activities and their families face a maximum prison term of six months;
• Blocking government buildings, up to five years in jail;
• Up to 15 days arrest for unauthorised installation of tents, stages and sound equipment;
• Anti-mask law with provision up to 15 days arrest for participation in peaceful gatherings wearing a mask, helmet or other means of concealing one’s face;
• NGOs that accept foreign funds must register as "foreign agents" and face high scrutiny, additional tax measures;
• Government may take the decision to apply Internet censorship;
• A broad definition of "extremist activities" adopted disallows NGOs and churches from engaging in support of civil protests.

Reactions:

Domestic:

The Ukrainian opposition warned the new measures would further inflame the protest movement, and called for a big gathering in the capital Kiev on Sunday.
Former Prime-Minister of Ukraine, jailed oppositional politician Yulia Tymoshenko on the ground of adopting this disputed laws said the following: "I ask the opposition and v=civil society to act quickly and decisively because we won't be defending the law, which Yanukovyich humiliated on January 16, but Ukrainian parliamentary system which is the final barricade before the total establishment of dictatorship. I ask the opposition to act immediately. "

International:

 


• European Union — In a tweet on Thursday following the events in parliament, European Union Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele said he was "profoundly concerned by new legislation limiting freedoms". He said the move contradicted Ukraine's "European aspirations" and its commitments in the European Union - Ukraine Association Agreement, which President Yanukovych abruptly refused to sign in November, amid Russian economic pressure.
• United States — Secretary of State John Kerry said "the legislation that was rammed through the Rada (parliament) without transparency and accountability violates all the norms of the OSCE and the EU." He further described the laws as "anti-democratic".

^ It seems the current Ukrainian Government is scared that they have lost control and are trying desperately to keep it even if it means bringing the country back to the dark days of the Soviet Union. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. Hopefully, they will come to their senses before more people are killed an wounded. ^

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_laws_in_Ukraine

WW 1 Myths

From the BBC:

"Lions and donkeys: 10 big myths about World War One debunked"

Much of what we think we know about the 1914-18 conflict is wrong, writes historian Dan Snow.

No war in history attracts more controversy and myth than World War One. For the soldiers who fought it was in some ways better than previous conflicts, and in some ways worse.  By setting it apart as uniquely awful we are blinding ourselves to the reality of not just WW1 but war in general. We are also in danger of belittling the experience of soldiers and civilians caught up in countless other appalling conflicts throughout history and the present day.

1. It was the bloodiest war in history to that point

Fifty years before WW1 broke out, southern China was torn apart by an even bloodier conflict. Conservative estimates of the dead in the 14-year Taiping rebellion start at between 20 and 30 million. Around 17 million soldiers and civilians were killed during WW1. Although more Britons died in WW1 than any other conflict, the bloodiest war in our history relative to population size is the Civil War which raged in the mid-17th Century. It saw a far higher proportion of the population of the British Isles killed than the less than 2% who died in WW1. By contrast around 4% of the population of England and Wales, and considerably more than that in Scotland and Ireland, are thought to have been killed in the Civil War.

2. Most soldiers died
In the UK around six million men were mobilised, and of those just over 700,000 were killed. That's around 11.5%. In fact, as a British soldier you were more likely to die during the Crimean War (1853-56) than in WW1.
 3. Men lived in the trenches for years on end

Front-line trenches could be a terribly hostile place to live. Often wet, cold and exposed to the enemy, units would quickly lose their morale if they spent too much time in them.  As a result, the British army rotated men in and out continuously. Between battles, a unit spent perhaps 10 days a month in the trench system, and of those, rarely more than three days right up on the front line. It was not unusual to be out of the line for a month.  During moments of crisis, such as big offensives, the British could occasionally spend up to seven days on the front line but were far more often rotated out after just a day or two.

4. The upper class got off lightly

Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite was hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers whose job it was to lead the way over the top and expose themselves to the greatest danger as an example to their men.  Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers. Eton alone lost more than 1,000 former pupils - 20% of those who served. UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded and an uncle was captured.

5. 'Lions led by donkeys'

This saying was supposed to have come from senior German commanders describing brave British soldiers led by incompetent old toffs from their chateaux. In fact the incident was made up by historian Alan Clark.  During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today.  Naturally, some generals were not up to the job, but others were brilliant, such as Arthur Currie, a middle-class Canadian failed insurance broker and property developer.  Rarely in history have commanders had to adapt to a more radically different technological environment.   British commanders had been trained to fight small colonial wars, now they were thrust into a massive industrial struggle unlike anything the British army had ever seen.  Despite this, within three years the British had effectively invented a method of warfare still recognisable today. By the summer of 1918 the British army was probably at its best ever and it inflicted crushing defeats on the Germans.

6. Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders
Far more British soldiers fought on the Gallipoli peninsula than Australians and New Zealanders put together.  The UK lost four or five times as many men in the brutal campaign as her imperial Anzac contingents. The French also lost more men than the Australians. The Aussies and Kiwis commemorate Gallipoli ardently, and understandably so, as their casualties do represent terrible losses both as a proportion of their forces committed and of their small populations.

7. Tactics on the Western Front remained unchanged despite repeated failure
Never have tactics and technology changed so radically in four years of fighting. It was a time of extraordinary innovation. In 1914 generals on horseback galloped across battlefields as men in cloth caps charged the enemy without the necessary covering fire. Both sides were overwhelmingly armed with rifles. Four years later, steel-helmeted combat teams dashed forward protected by a curtain of artillery shells.  They were now armed with flame throwers, portable machine-guns and grenades fired from rifles. Above, planes, that in 1914 would have appeared unimaginably sophisticated, duelled in the skies, some carrying experimental wireless radio sets, reporting real-time reconnaissance. Huge artillery pieces fired with pinpoint accuracy - using only aerial photos and maths they could score a hit on the first shot. Tanks had gone from the drawing board to the battlefield in just two years, also changing war forever.  8. No-one won

Swathes of Europe lay wasted, millions were dead or wounded. Survivors lived on with severe mental trauma. The UK was broke. It is odd to talk about winning.  However, in a narrow military sense, the UK and her allies convincingly won. Germany's battleships had been bottled up by the Royal Navy until their crews mutinied rather than make a suicidal attack against the British fleet.  Germany's army collapsed as a series of mighty allied blows scythed through supposedly impregnable defences.  By late September 1918 the German emperor and his military mastermind Erich Ludendorff admitted that there was no hope and Germany must beg for peace. The 11 November Armistice was essentially a German surrender.  Unlike Hitler in 1945, the German government did not insist on a hopeless, pointless struggle until the allies were in Berlin - a decision that saved countless lives, but was seized upon later to claim Germany never really lost.

9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh

The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.  It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.  The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

After WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, her factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained after WW1 and another giant slice on top of that.  Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by Hitler who sought to create a tidal wave of anti-Versailles sentiment on which he could then ride into power.

10. Everyone hated it

Like any war, it all comes down to luck. You may witness unimaginable horrors that leave you mentally and physically incapacitated for life, or you might get away without a scrape. It could be the best of times, or the worst of times.  Many soldiers enjoyed WW1. If they were lucky they would avoid a big offensive, and much of the time, conditions might be better than at home.  For the British there was meat every day - a rare luxury back home - cigarettes, tea and rum, part of a daily diet of over 4,000 calories.  Absentee rates due to sickness, an important barometer of a unit's morale were, remarkably, hardly above peacetime rates. Many young men enjoyed the guaranteed pay, the intense comradeship, the responsibility and a much greater sexual freedom than in peacetime Britain.

^ It's always interesting to read things that sometimes stop and make you think about what you think you know about an event. This is one of those. ^

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

MLKJ Day

From USA Today:

"King's legacy still cause of debate"

It is a large legacy that looms over the past five decades, from the prophetic "I Have a Dream" speech delivered during the March on Washington to his last campaign taking a stand for underpaid black sanitation workers in Memphis, the city where he was slain. But to a number of conservatives, forgotten in the shadow of the memorials and tributes during the national holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s life's work is his firm embrace of Christian values and a desire to see a colorblind America live up to the creed of equality professed by the Founding Fathers. "I am a conservative and very proud of him and his sacrifices," said Laura Houston, a 61-year-old black Republican. She also is a member of the tea party, which borrows heavily from King's playbook of demonstrations and civic activism. Houston grew up attending the all-black Monroe High School in Cocoa, Fla., and remembers the man who used the pulpit to remind America of its obligations to Godly justice. "I do not think that people appreciate the contributions he made. When he started out, he separated from the other black (secular) groups like the NAACP and formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I respected him for that," said Houston, who was raised a Southern Baptist. Houston's is not an uncommon opinion today in many conservative circles, even as communities across the country prepare Monday to commemorate what would have been King's 85th birthday in an era where abortion is a protected right and same-sex marriage is slowly becoming the law of the land. ^“I think that had he lived, King would not be a part of the (liberal) Democratic movement that came out of the 1960s. I don't think he would support abortion or gay rights.^” The move to cast King in a more conservative light has grown increasingly vocal in recent years as conservatives point to the fundamental values of traditional families, self-help and patriotism shared with King as he preached a gospel of social justice for all Americans. Critics, however, see it as a slight of hand tactic that avoids King's calls to help the poor and shun war. Those who hold a traditional view of King as a radical who used non-violence and wrote about reforming America's treatment of the poor and marginalized, question the characterization made by conservatives. In the years leading up to his assassination, King had moved beyond his focus on civil rights and began openly challenging the sitting Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, over Vietnam, wealth redistribution and the struggles of the poor. "He was beyond and above being a Democrat or a Republican," said Gordon Patterson, a professor with the Humanities Department at Florida Tech who has studied civil rights. "Martin Luther King Jr.'s politics were a politics of morality, and that transcended any organization. He was fighting for justice ... if that was Democratic, good, if it was Republican, good," said Gordon, who participated in civil rights marches while an undergraduate student at Northwestern University. To be sure, King, who was at the forefront of the civil rights movement, inspired others to protest or practice civil disobedience against laws they disagreed with, said Houston and others. This weekend, pro-life activists across the nation will take to the streets in prayer and protest in a similar fashion against the Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court 41 years ago. Houston said King would be shocked to find the traditional values he taught as a minister were de-emphasized in the civil rights movement in favor of a more secular world view.

"I think that had he lived, King would not be a part of the (liberal) Democratic movement that came out of the 1960s. I don't think he would support abortion or gay rights," as a Christian minister, said Houston, who turned from the Democratic Party not long after it began supporting Roe vs. Wade.

"No, I don't think King would be happy with what's happened in our society and what's happened to the black family."

^ This was an interesting "what if" piece. One thing that people today don't have to ponder is those Southern states that continue to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr Day along with Confederate "icons." That is a disgrace along the same lines as holding Holocaust Remembrance Day along with Hitler. The Germans were made to stop worshipping Hitler and the Nazis after World War 2 and many former Communist dictatorships have since allowed Communist symbols and praise. The same should be done in the US with anything relating to the Confederacy. People who say Confederate symbols and ideals aren't racist clearly don't remember the Civil Rights era in the 1950s-1960s when they were highly used to stop integration. I lived in Virginia (where they celebrated MLKJ-Lee-Davis Day.) The Civil War may have ended 149 years ago and the Civil Rights Movement 40 years ago, but there are still very strong desires in the South to "bring back the glory of the old Confederate days." That is something that should never be allowed to happen. The Confederacy is on the same annuals of history as: Nazism, Communism and Apartheid. ^

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/19/kings-legacy-still-cause-of-debate/4654407/

Stopping The Gas

From Yahoo:
"Israel to stop distributing gas masks to public"

Israel decided on Sunday to end a decades-old policy of issuing gas masks to the public in an apparent sign of confidence in Syria's chemical weapons disarmament. Since being hit by Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War, authorities have handed out masks, though Syria's chemical arsenal was Israel's primary concern in recent years. That changed when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, embroiled in a civil war and under threat of a U.S.-military strike, agreed last year to give up his chemical weapons stockpile. The final deadline set for eliminating the chemical agents is the end of June. Israel's main security focus is now on Iran, which it accuses of developing nuclear weapons, an allegation Tehran denies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said in a statement the decision to stop providing masks to all Israelis was a result of "a defense establishment assessment that there has been a dramatic decline in the threat of the firing of chemical weapons at Israel". Distribution of masks to the public will stop by February and afterward they will be produced in much smaller quantities for rescue services only, the statement said. Some Israeli officials had suggested halting the program on economic grounds, noting a kit cost an average of $100 to produce for a population of around eight million, and was of limited value against nerve agents. "I think this decision stems mainly from budgetary concerns, but also from the perception that the threat has diminished given the Syrian chemical disarmament process," said Alon Rozen, former director-general of the Civil Defense Ministry, who now runs the Elements HLS consultancy firm. As recently as last August, thousands of Israelis lined up for gas masks, spurred on by fears that a U.S.-strike against Assad's forces would bring reprisals against Israel. Washington had threatened military action after reports surfaced of poison gas attacks on the outskirts of Damascus that killed hundreds, including children. Assad then agreed to abandon his chemical weapons, and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is now overseeing the destruction of the Syrian arsenal.

^ I think the decision to stop handing out gas masks is solely based on money and not safety. Syria used chemical gas on its own people and just because they say they will give up their stock pile doesn't mean they will give it all up. Also Iran could use gas. Any terrorist group/country that hates Israel could use gas as a weapon. If I was Israeli I would get my own gas mask and make sure I was as prepared as I could be (just like I do here - although I don't have a gas mask.) Being prepared here means to have enough food, water, propane, gas etc in case I can't get off my mountain due to snow, ice, mud, fallen trees or things of that nature. Even on the days I can't make it off my mountain (and there have been about 8 days here this winter alone) I still have the up-most respect for Israelis who are constantly under the threat of gas, missiles or bombs regardless of where they live. ^

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-stop-distributing-gas-masks-public-133613382.html

90 Day Fiance

TLC has a show called "90 Day Fiance." It follows several couples (so far all the men are Americans and all the women are foreigners) who haven't spent more than a few weeks together and have 90 days to get married in the US or the women have to leave. One thing I don't like is how everyone constantly says that the 90 day limit forces them to do things quickly (ie get to know each other and get married.) The K-1 Visa is not meant for couples to get to know each other and then decide to get married. It's meant for already engaged couples (who supposedly know each other) to get married in the US. You can tell which women on the show are just trying to get a way to stay in the US and which ones really seem to love their fiancé.

I have seen both sides of this in real life. I have seen those couples that are truly in love and just want to live in the same place together (whether in the US or another country) and I have seen those couples where the American is being tricked by a person who just wants to live in America. Everytime, I flew from Russia to come home the plane was filled with European and American men all talking about their girlfriends or fiancées and the majority had just met them for the first time. Luckily, I wasn't one of those men.

Watching this show is like watching a accident - you just can't help but keep watching to see what happens next. I'm curious to see if my predictions on each couple come true.

Protest Law

From Yahoo: 

"Ukraine leader signs controversial anti-protest law"

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych on Friday signed into law strict curbs on protests condemned by the US and Europe and branded a power grab by the opposition.The new legislation allows the authorities to jail those who blockade public buildings for up to five years. It also permits the arrest of protesters who wear masks or helmets. US Secretary of State John Kerry called the curbs anti-democratic and wrong, while EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said such actions "do not contribute to building confidence". Western rights groups had called on Yanukovych to veto the legislation, denouncing the bills as an attempt to impose a "dictatorship." The opposition has staged nearly two months of protests in response to Yanukovych's decision to ditch a key pact with the European Union in favour of close ties with Russia. Ashton said before Yanukovych signed off on the legislation she was "deeply concerned by the events in Kiev", asking him to "ensure that these decisions are revised and brought in line with Ukraine's international commitments". Ukraine's opposition fears the tough new legislation will be used to break up the opposition movement and prosecute its leaders. The provisions, which mirror restrictive measures in place in former master Russia, are clearly aimed at the protesters in Kiev who are occupying the City Hall building and manning a tent city with massive barricades on the central Independence Square and its surrounding streets. "This kind of anti-democratic manoeuvre is extremely disturbing and should be of concern to every nation that wants to see the people of Ukraine be able to, not only express their wish, but see it executed," Kerry said. In a fresh sign of tension within the administration, Yanukovych's office said his chief of staff, Sergiy Lyovochkin, was standing down and would instead act as an advisor.

Lyovochkin first submitted his resignation after riot police brutally broke up an opposition protest late last year but Yanukovych refused to let him go at the time.  Yanukovych's spokeswoman Darka Chepak may also leave, a representative of the presidential administration told AFP on condition of anonymity. Chepak was not immediately available for comment. The opposition accused Yanukovych of ending democracy in the country and called on people to come out for a new monster rally on Sunday. "Yanukovych... took a new step toward installing a real neo-dictatorship in Ukraine," the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko said in a statement.  "The bills are a high security prison for everyone who feels like a free person," added former interior minister turned opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko.  He invited all Ukrainians to mount a strong protest against "the ruling group of bandits", writing on his Facebook page while recovering in a hospital from an attack by truncheon-wielding police this month. Other provisions passed Thursday introduced the term "foreign agent" to be applied to NGOs that receive even the smallest funding from foreign countries.

Russia passed a similar package of bills after Vladimir Putin was inaugurated for his third term in the Kremlin in 2012, hiking fines for unsanctioned protests, making libel a criminal offence, and slapping NGOs with the "foreign agent" label.  The German government, seen as one of the most influential voices in the European Union's dealings with ex-Soviet states, said it was watching the events in Kiev with "great concern". "The course chosen yesterday by President Yanukovych leads to a dead end," added German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. "Repressions should not be the response to heated political discussions," Steinmeier said in a statement. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said on Twitter the new bills lead to a situation where "there can be no business as usual with Kiev".

"What Russia did in 60 days after Putin's (inauguration), Ukraine did in 20 minutes," the deputy chief of Human Rights Watch group Rachel Denber wrote on Twitter. Critics voiced concern after pro-government lawmakers voted by a show of hands instead of the regular electronic system, leaving no record to verify the figure of 235 in favour out of 450 present.

^ This isn't very surprising considering that Yanukovych is basically a Russian lackey. He is their "yes" man who seems to only want to appease his over-lords rather than help his own people ^

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-president-signs-anti-protest-bills-law-official-201313843.html

Anti-German Celebration

From MT

"'No Place for German Ads' During Leningrad Siege Liberation Celebrations"

Authorities in St. Petersburg have told advertising agencies to remove German goods ads from the city's main streets during the celebrations marking 70 years since the end of the Nazi's Siege of Leningrad during World War II, a news report said. Several outdoor advertising agencies said the city's advertising regulator ordered them to take down the offending materials not just from main streets, but also from districts where cemeteries are located, Delovoi Peterburg reported Thursday.
The blockade, which lasted almost 900 days and cost the lives of about 800,000 citizens, was breached on Jan. 18, 1944, before being lifted on Jan. 27, 1944. The city celebrates these two dates each year. The decision to remove German brands' advertisements may have been taken to avoid upsetting veterans and other survivors of the blockade, though the advertisements in question have no link to Nazism. City Hall denied involvement in sending out the order and called it a provocation, NTV television channel reported. Volgo-Balt Media said the regulator ordered it to get rid of five bus stop advertisements that promote its client Media Markt, an electrical goods retailer, the report said.
The regulator's reported decree has been criticized by other agencies and German goods retailers. "In any matter, it is possible to reach the point of absurdity, but in my view, to remove advertisements just because they promote a German brand is stupidity," said Igor Sedov, the director of Aksel Group, which is a BMW and Volkswagen dealer. "A lot of German firms operate in Russia today; young firms that have no connection with the War," said Dr. Gabriele Kötschau, chairwoman of the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce in St. Petersburg. "I think it is wrong punish them by taking down outdoor advertisements on these dates that are important for 'Leningraders'." In December, St. Petersburg authorities managed to vex the city's residents with one of their plans for the festivities. A proposal to stage a reenactment of events from the siege was met with howls of derision by bloggers, who felt that turning a tragedy into a form of entertainment was an insult to both the people who survived the blockade and those who perished during it. "What is there to reconstruct? Collecting water from the River Neva in buckets? Carrying corpses on sleds?" Vkontakte user Asya Spirina commented, Fontanka.ru reported.

^ I don't understand this logic for anyone except those that are veterans or survivors.  I could understand to any form of pro-Nazi advertising not being allowed, but considering that German (first East German and then a re-united German) products have been popular in the USSR and then Russia since the 1960s. In fact, during Soviet times East German products were seen as a higher quality product (even though they weren't in the West.) I know a  woman who was still very proud of her East German-made clothes that she bought in the 1980s (when most Soviet citizens could only dream of such "finery") even though Western clothes had been available in present-day Russia for the past 20 years. When I lived in Russia I would buy German-made products when I wanted a taste of non-Russian items. Also, I remember the first time I studied in Yaroslavl and didn't know Russian yet. There was an old man from the former East Germany also studying Russian (he learned it back in school and was getting re-certified for his job.) He was asked by the head of the Russian Department to give a speech, in Russian, at the Victory Day celebrations. I don't know why he was asked to or why he agreed to do it, but he did it and even though I couldn't understand what he was saying I could hear the Russian crowd "boo" him. Another American student studying Russian told me that he basically was talking about how Germany and Russia's relationship had grown since 1945. It was a bad idea for both the school to invite him and for him to accept. I understand that Russia and the former USSR suffered great lengths (around 20+ million Soviets were killed) but if Israel and the Jews (again not those that were victims) can make amends with Germany so should the Russians - especially considering that they were friends of and profited with Nazi Germany from September 1939 to June 1941. I have been to Saint Petersburg (including Peterhof which was occupied and destroyed by the Germans) and like the city. I only hope the city and residents come to their senses and do away with these archaic thoughts. ^ 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/no-place-for-german-ads-during-leningrad-siege-liberation-celebrations/492927.html

Putin Warning

From the BBC:

"Winter Olympics: Putin cautions gay visitors to Sochi"

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said homosexuals will be welcome in Sochi for the Olympics but warned them against spreading "gay propaganda". "We don't have a ban on non-traditional sexual relations," he said. "We have a ban on promoting homosexuality and paedophilia among minors."

He was speaking in Sochi to volunteers due to help at next month's games. Mr Putin told BBC News Russia would ensure security for the games without it impacting unduly on the event.  Speaking to BBC One's Andrew Marr Show nearly three weeks after the deadly suicide bombings in Volgograd, he said the international community should unite against terrorism. Denying that the Winter Olympics was aimed at increasing his personal prestige, it said it was a chance to boost Russian morale after the difficult years which followed the collapse of the USSR in 1991. One of the volunteers at Friday's meeting commented on Sochi's rainbow-coloured uniforms and asked if they might be breaching the ban on gay propaganda. Mr Putin replied that he had not designed the uniform.  "We are not banning anything and we won't arrest anyone," Mr Putin said, in televised remarks.  "You can feel free in your relationships but leave children in peace." Gay rights campaigners around the world have called for a boycott of the Winter Olympics in protest at Russia's controversial new legislation, which was passed in June. The amendment to the child protection law prescribes fines for providing information about homosexuality to people under 18. These range from 4,000 roubles (£78; $121) for an individual to 1m roubles for organisations. Critics say the amendment's loose wording, and its free interpretation by the authorities, effectively make any kind of public gay rights event in Russia impossible.  Some national leaders have indicated they will not attend the games, which run from 7 to 23 February. US President Barack Obama pointedly announced he was sending an Olympic delegation that includes several openly gay sports figures, among them tennis legend Billie Jean King.  Just before the new year holiday, suicide bombers attacked Volgograd's central railway station and a trolleybus, killing 32 people in addition to themselves and wounding about 70. The bombings followed threats from Islamist militants in Russia's troubled North Caucasus to disrupt the Olympics with attacks. Militants attacked a restaurant in Makhachkala, Dagestan, on Friday, injuring seven people. "I think the international community should unite to fight such inhuman phenomena as terror attacks and the murder of totally innocent people," Mr Putin told the BBC. "Our task as the organisers is to ensure the safety of those taking part in the Olympics and those attending this sporting event." But Russia would seek to carry out security measures which did not distract from the Games, he said. On the aim of the Sochi Games, Mr Putin said: "This is not my personal ambition but the direct, concentrated interest of the state and our people." "After the collapse of the USSR, after the bloody events in the Caucasus, the general mood of society was sombre and pessimistic, and we need to give ourselves a shake," the Russian president said.

^ It does seem that Putin is trying to convince foreigners to forget the official Russian discrimination and to come to the Olympics. It sounds like a desperate plea from a man that many has said is the father of the Sochi Olympics and as such will do anything and everything to make it a success. The fact that dozens of world leaders (including the US) are refusing to go shows that so far the Sochi Olympics is shaping out to be like the Moscow Olympics (even without an official boycott there is a personal boycott.) ^

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25785161

Jap Hold-Out

From Yahoo:

"Japan WWII soldier who hid in jungle until 1974 dies"

A Japanese soldier who hid in the Philippine jungle for three decades, refusing to believe World War II was over until his former commander returned and ordered him to surrender, has died in Tokyo aged 91. Hiroo Onoda waged a guerilla campaign in Lubang Island near Luzon until he was finally persuaded in 1974 that peace had broken out, ignoring leaflet drops and successive attempts to convince him the Imperial Army had been defeated. He died in a Tokyo hospital on Thursday of heart failure. Onoda was the last of several dozen so-called holdouts scattered around Asia, men who symbolised the astonishingly dogged perseverance of those called upon to fight for their emperor.

Trained as an information officer and guerrilla tactics coach, Onoda was dispatched to Lubang in 1944 and ordered never to surrender, never to resort to suicidal attacks and to hold firm until reinforcements arrived. He and three other soldiers continued to obey that order long after Japan's 1945 defeat. Their existence became widely known in 1950, when one of their number emerged and returned to Japan. The others continued to survey military facilities in the area, attacking local residents and occasionally fighting with Philippine forces, although one of them died soon afterwards. Tokyo declared them dead after nine years of fruitless search.  However, in 1972, Onoda and the other surviving soldier got involved in a shoot-out with Philippine troops. His comrade died, but Onoda managed to escape. The incident caused a sensation in Japan, which took his family members to Lubang in the hope of persuading him that hostilities were over. Onoda later explained he had believed attempts to coax him out were the work of a puppet regime installed in Tokyo by the United States. He read about his home country in newspapers that searchers deliberately scattered in the jungle for him to find, but dismissed their content as propaganda. The regular overflight by US planes during the long years of the Vietnam war also convinced him that the battle he had joined was still being played out across Asia. It was not until 1974, when his old commanding officer visited him in his jungle hideout to rescind the original order, that Onoda's war eventually ended. Asked at a press conference in Japan after his return what he had been thinking about for the last 30 years, he told reporters: "Carrying out my orders." But the Japan that Onoda returned to was much changed. The country he had left, and the one he had believed he was still fighting for, was in the grip of a militarist government, bent on realising what it thought was its divine right to dominate the region.

Crippled by years of increasingly unsuccessful war, its economy was in ruins and its people were hungry. But the Japan of 1974 was in the throes of a decades-long economic boom and in thrall to Western culture. It was also avowedly pacifist. Onoda had difficultly adapting to the new reality and, in 1975, emigrated to Brazil to start a cattle ranch, although he continued to travel back and forth.

In 1984, still very much a celebrity, he established a youth camp, where he taught young Japanese some of the survival techniques he had used during his 30 years in hiding, when he lived on wild cows and bananas.

^ This man and the others like him are not to be celebrated they are to be feared. They symbolize the truly brain-washed. The majority were so mentally unstable after 30 + years of fighting for a baseless cause that even their own countrymen abandoned and looked down on them when they returned home. For many Japanese, they saw these people as remainders of what their country had done to start the war and to fight to the death. Luckily. these hold-outs were few and were basically rejected by society afterwards and not turned into heroes. I can't imagine what would have happened if the Germans had done the same. Japan still hasn't really addressed much of what it did during the war, but now one more horrible aspect is gone and sent into the annuals of history. ^

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-wwii-soldier-hid-jungle-until-1974-dies-091014526.html

Dogs

From Yahoo: 

"7 Things You Should Never Say to a Dog Owner"

Some things are better left unsaid. No matter how good something might sound to you-before you utter it aloud-there are some basic "no no's" when it comes to talking with a dog owner. Here are 7 definite comments you should never say. See how many of these have been hurled your way.

1. "You Have Dogs Because You Don't Have Kids, Right?" Not only is this rude, but there are millions of people who enjoy both varieties of kids: both the human and the canine types. If you are someone who chooses to have children and then look down upon me or any other millions of childless by choice folks with a sneer, think twice before you speak. We are not lesser people for not having human children. In fact, many of us feel much richer by being graced by the presence of a dog.

2. "Oh, Your Dog Died? Well, Get Another One!"

For millions of us, hearing "just get another one" when a dog dies is insensitive and can be interpreted as downright cruel, no matter how well-intentioned your words might seem. We do not replace people when they pass, and dog owners feel the same way: A life is irreplaceable no matter the form it takes.

3. "Dogs Should Not Be Allowed on Furniture/Bed"

According to a survey conducted by the American Pet Products Association, almost half of dogs sleep with their owners in their owner's beds. Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, where their dog is allowed to reside is totally their own business. Besides, some of us sleep better, feel calm, and are generally more positive people with a dog by our side, present company included.

4. "That Dog Doesn't Understand What You're Saying" I talk to my dog. Raise a paw if you are one of the millions of people who talks to their canine family member(s). I do this whether I am doing laundry, shopping in a pet-welcoming store, or driving in the car. Maybe he doesn't understand "Mommy needs a new pair of pumps" but he knows the intonation of my voice and responds with a tail wag and a tilted head; or sometimes no reaction at all. Dogs are living, breathing beings, and it is a fact that much of what we say is understood. Just ask Chaser, the dog who knows well over 1,000 words. To each their own, and if talking to my dog bothers you then don't eavesdrop.

5. "That Dog Should Be Put Down; He's Costing You Too Much Money"

Perhaps one of the most unsavory and disturbing trends involves folks who feel they are the mortality police. The decision to euthanize a beloved pet is a very personal and heartbreaking one. I know because I've been down that road. Telling me to put a dog down in the name of cost savings is grounds for dismissal from my life, and I know I am not alone in feeling this way.

6. "You Shouldn't Let that Dog Kiss You" My mouth, my face, my dog, my life: These four factors alone are all reasons why dog kisses are allowed. Yes, there is a whole scientific school of thought, and some fact, about germs and bacteria and cross contamination and zoonotic diseases. If you don't want a smooch from my pooch then if I am getting a dog kiss, look away and say nothing.

7. "You Are Welcome, But the Dog Is Not"

As someone who has traveled the country with dogs for over 20 years, my mantra is "love me, love my dog." I do not expect dogs to be allowed everywhere and anywhere, but I do expect the welcome mat to be rolled out if I want to bring my well-behaved dog with me to certain things. Granted, I know my dog can't come to your wedding or to someone's funeral, though I've seen pooches at both. If you simply do not want my dog at your house because you just aren't all that into dogs, then sorry: I'm just not all that into you.

^  As a dog owner I agree with the majority of these points. ^

http://shine.yahoo.com/pets/7-things-never-dog-owner-145800067.html

The Butler (2013)

I watched this movie last night (after it came from Netflix.) I have to say that I didn't care for it. I understand (and agree with) the message behind the film, but don't think it portrayed that the way it could have. One main part of the story is the famous people (ie the US Presidents) that the butler - played by Forrest Whitaker - works for. To play a famous person that everyone has seen pictures of you have to look, sound and act like the person otherwise it is a waste. The only way these people look like Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson and Reagan is if you close one eye and squint with the other. I also do not like that Jane Fonda (Hanoi Jane) was given the role of Nancy Reagan.

This movie had a good basic storyline (with the differences in America from the 1920s-today both societal and personal) but it is supposed to be a film based on a real person and yet so many of his personal details were changed for no reason. He wasn't born in Georgia, but Virginia. His mother was raped by a white man. Also the real butler (Eugene Allen) only had one son and not two. These key changes completely change the life story of the real butler with that of the one in this movie. It is one thing to have him experience things that he may not have experienced in real life, but to change such fundamental aspects as his up-bringing and his family just limits the overall experience the movie-watcher gets as they get a false sense of real life (which is not what you want from a movie based on someone's real life.)

CDN's Key?

From the Globe and Mail:
"Ottawa aims to boost international students from six key countries"

The Harper government is hoping to attract more students to Canada from overseas – a lot more.

International Trade Minister Ed Fast says the government hopes a new program will see more than 450,000 international researchers and students enrolled at Canadian universities by 2022. The aim is to attract students from six key countries – China, Brazil, India, Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam.

If successful, the program could result in a doubling of the number of international students studying in Canada. Fast says he wants to see that happen while preserving current seat space in post-secondary institutions for Canadian students. The government plans to spend $5-million annually to support the program. Another $13-million over two years will be spent on the Globalink program, which also helps Canadian students study in other countries. Fast says encouraging more international education helps to create jobs. “This strategy will also help us advance Canada’s commercial interests in priority markets around the world,” Fast said in a statement. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the program will pump billions of dollars into the economy.

^ It seems like a waste of time and money. I guess since the Canadian Immigration and Citizenship Ministry doesn't care about fixing their 6 months to a year back-log to take are of Canadians and other tourists they need to spend their money on something. ^

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-aims-to-boost-international-students-from-six-key-countries/article16344061/

No Light Enforcement

From USA Today:

"Congress to bar enforcement of light-bulb phaseout"

Congress' budget deal tries to thwart the federal phaseout of inefficient light bulbs and to expand financing of coal-fired power plants abroad. The $1.1 trillion spending bill, which covers all federal agencies and is expected to pass the House and Senate this week, bars the Department of Energy from spending money to enforce federal rules that set tougher efficiency standards for light bulbs. Such a measure has been attached to prior budget deals as well. The ban takes aim at a bipartisan 2007 law, signed by President Bush, that phases out the most commonly used Thomas Edison incandescents, which waste 90% of their energy as heat rather than light. This phaseout -- begun in January 2012 with the 100-watt, followed by the 75-watt last year and the 60-watt and 40-watt this month -- has angered many Americans who dislike newer bulbs partly because of their higher up-front costs. House Republicans have tried but failed to stop the phaseout so they've focused instead on de-funding its enforcement. In announcing the new budget deal, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, called the light-bulb-efficiency standard "onerous" and welcomed the enforcement ban. Critics, including environmentalists and many in the lighting industry, say the ban is a nuisance but won't likely stop the shift toward more energy-efficient bulbs such as CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) and LEDs (light emitting diodes), which are up to 90% more efficient. "The market has marched forward despite this rider," says Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "The manufacturers have all been saying -- we're going to comply anyway." Yet Matzner says the ban should be eliminated, because it can create a loophole for illegal imports of the old incandescents and doesn't allow DOE to help U.S. companies meet the new standards. The phaseout doesn't stop stores from selling remaining stock of the old bulbs but bars them from making or importing them. On the pro-environment side, the pending budget bill slightly increases funding -- compared to a December agreement -- for the Environmental Protection Agency. It also does not include a conservative-led effort to stop EPA's proposed rules for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants.. Yet it aims to weaken restrictions on U.S. financing for overseas coal power plants. It includes a measure that bars the Export-Import Bank -- the nation's export credit agency -- "from blocking coal and other power-generation projects, which will increase exports of U.S. goods or services." The bank, an independent federal agency that is self-funding from fees it collects, provides loans and loan guarantees for the construction of coal-fired power plants that are built partly with U.S.-made goods such as steam turbines. In the last decade, it's helped finance two coal-fired power plants -- one in India and one in South Africa. In December, the bank's board of directors voted to end its funding of these plants except in limited cases when they serve the least developed countries or contain technology that capture carbon emissions. The bill's provision "slightly expands the number of countries that would be considered among the poorest in the world," says bank spokesman Phil Cogan, noting it adds 15 nations including India and Vietnam. Rogers says the provision is "critical" to coal and other U.S. industries."The nation's coal industry has taken a beating from the Obama Administration's War on Coal, which has cost thousands of jobs in my district alone," Rep. Rogers says in a statement. Matzner says the policy measure runs counter to President Obama's efforts to tackle climate change and should not be added to an omnibus spending bill that allows no time for debate.

^ It seems that the majority of Americans do not like being told which light bulbs they can and can not buy and this provision seems to over-ride the actual ban. I don't like the new light bulbs because they don't give off the same light and what's the point of having a light bulb that lasts a thousand years and doesn't give light? There is no point. ^

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/coal-projects-light-bulb-rules/4476103/

Discriminating Aid

From the Globe and Mail:

"Four ways to save money on consular assistance to Canadians abroad"

Senior bureaucrats are advising the federal government to consider scaling back the consular assistance it provides to some Canadians abroad. The suggestions to save money come after a string of recent crises, including one recent 15-month period in which Ottawa helped Canadian citizens – some of whom are seen as maintaining “citizenship of convenience” – in 50 international crises in 36 countries. are some options:

Residency requirement: The Canadian government could decide to limit consular services to Canadians who have lived abroad for shorter periods of time. For instance, Ottawa could opt to provide assistance only to expatriates who have been away for less than five years, which is the same rule for overseas voting.

Tax status: Ottawa could tie consular assistance to expats’ tax status, which is based on residency, a determination that includes whether those living abroad keep homes in Canada, Canadian drivers’ licences or Canadian bank accounts.

Passport choice: The government could provide fewer services for dual nationals who choose to travel or live abroad on another country’s passport.

Non-resident tax: Observers have previously advocated introducing a new tax for Canadians who have been living overseas for a longer period of time, such as charging $500 for a passport.

^ This is one of the dumbest proposals I've heard in a while. Canada is constantly promoting itself as a free society that helps everyone yet they want to discriminate against Canadians that do not live in Canada. It seems to be a trend with Canada. From the 1940s to the 1970s Canadians were not allowed to be dual citizens (despite the majority of other Commonwealth countries allowing it.) Back then you could also loose your Canadian Citizenship by living outside Canada for a certain period of time. Even when Canada "tried" to correct their past mistakes a few years ago by allowing those Canadians that had their citizenship taken from them by the Federal Government to re-claim it they made a provision where native Canadians could not pass on their citizenship to their children if they weren't both born in Canada. Now they want to refuse consular protection to Canadians that don't live in Canada. Why doesn't Canada just build a giant bubble over their country and refuse any of their citizens to leave? The only proposal I agree with here is that if a person enters a country on another passport (not a Canadian one) then they shouldn't be protected by the Canadian Embassy/Government in that country. When I enter the US I have to use my American Passport and am considered American. When I enter Canada I have to use my Canadian Passport and am considered Canadian. If I travel to Europe on my American Passport then I should be considered American there (the same if I enter with my Canadian Passport.) I really hope the Canadian Government (Immigration/Citizenship and Embassies/High Commissions) wake up and stop discriminating against their own citizens. There are more important things that they should be focused on. ^.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/four-ways-to-save-money-on-consular-assistance-to-canadians-abroad/article16324867/

Two Way Street

From MT:

"Ahead of Olympics, Russians Urged to Help Prevent Attacks"

Less than a month before the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russian investigators appealed to civilians on Tuesday to be more vigilant and help avert the threat of "terrorist" attacks. Insurgents who want to create an Islamist state in the North Caucasus mountains have threatened to attack the Games, and suicide bombers killed at least 34 people in the southern city of Volgograd last month. President Vladimir Putin, who has staked his personal and political prestige on next month's Games, has put troops on combat alert in Sochi and tightened security across the country, but fears of an attack on the Olympics remain. "You can't just count on the special services and heroic commandos," Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Investigative Committee, which answers directly to Putin, told Izvestia in an interview. "If our citizens are not ready to be vigilant, and to refrain from the shady business and corruption that create an environment for the terrorist underground, the intelligence services and — even more so — the investigators can only … face the tragic consequences." Markin did not specifically refer to the Olympics but that is currently the country's main security concern. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was more explicit in comments made Tuesday, calling protection of the Sochi Games one of the armed forces' top priorities for 2014, Interfax reported. Markin said his agency had lost count of how many militants had been killed in Russia, which has fought two separatist wars in Chechnya in the North Caucasus since the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. He said federal security agencies cooperated well but civilians' help was still vital. "In my view this is the only way, simultaneously from the top and bottom … to control channels of illegal trafficking and terrorism," he told the paper, which is allied to the Kremlin. Sochi lies on the Black Sea and on the western edge of the Caucasus Mountains, where the Islamist insurgents wage almost daily violence. The insurgency's leader and Moscow's most-wanted man, Doku Umarov, has urged militants to exercise "maximum force" to prevent the Games from going ahead. Putin said after the Volgograd bombings that he would annihilate "terrorists," and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has said he is confident that Russia can guarantee security at the Games, which start on Feb. 7. About 37,000 personnel are now in place to provide security in Sochi and the International Olympic Committee has expressed confidence the Games will be safe. But, underlining the danger of attacks, security forces said Saturday that they had arrested five members of a banned militant group in southern Russia and defused a homemade bomb packed with shrapnel

^ While I think people need to be vigilant I have seen say to report things and in the end they do nothing. When I was at the US Holocaust Museum I called security over abandoned luggage in the middle of the museum. They didn't take it seriously (despite their numerous calls for employees and patrons to tell them about things like this.) They didn't even send someone up to investigate. Another time I was waiting for an international flight when a passenger told an airport official about something suspicious and the official told them not to get involved and walked away. So, telling people to look out for things does nothing if the officials do nothing when they are warned. ^

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/sochi2014/Ahead-of-Olympics-Russians-Urged-to-Help-Prevent-Attacks.html