“The Other Night Before Christmas”

"The Other Night Before Christmas" 

By: Diane Boyd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T'was the night before Christmas

When all through the woods,

Eight lean wolves were hunting for warm meaty goods.
They searched far and wide and they gave it their best,
But came up with nothing and lay down to rest.

They slept on snowdrifts, noses tucked into tails,
White frost on their muzzles, backs turned to the gales,
When, up in the sky, there appeared a weird vision:
An old man, a sleigh and a banquet of venison.

Past dancing northern lights, they dropped from the sky,
Touched down on the snow - they were going to come by!
The wolves, lay in wait, not daring to breathe,
"Here comes a great gift, and hooves for our wreath."

"Now Dasher! Now Dancer! Now Prancer and Vixen!..."
The wolves crouched prepared, for the feast they were fixin'.
As the sleigh drew along side, wolves burst from the trees.
It was all said and done 'fore the old man could sneeze.

The wolves acted on instinct - now bellies distended,
With no thoughts of Christmas their actions had ended.
Then they heard a strange sound and looked at the sled.
Old Santa was crying, "My reindeer are dead!"
How will I deliver all my beautiful toys
To needy, deserving, hopeful, good girls and boys?

It then dawned on the wolves they had done something bad,
And, amidst some loud burping, all felt very sad.

So they huddled together and discussed as a pack 
How to help Santa deliver the gifts in his sack.
Alpha brightened a bit and started to howl
"I've got it!" - as reindeer hair fell from his jowl.
"We will fit in the harness, we will pull that old sleigh.
Yes, Christmas will happen! Let's get Santa on his way!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now Santa was hesitant to work with deer slayers,
But accepting the offer, he hitched up the players.
They loped, ran, and flew around the world that whole night;
The wolves really dug it, Santa beamed with delight.
"You wolves really know how to cover the miles,"
And Santa envisioned, come morning, kids' smiles.

"Your soft feet are so quiet, no clatter of hooves
Like those noisy old reindeer on hard frozen roofs."
Near the end of the route Santa had a strange thought,
"This is better than those flighty reindeer I fought."

He said to himself, "Who the heck needs to know?"
So he turned to the wolves, their gold eyes aglow,
And asked them quite frankly "What'cha doing next year?"
The wolves shyly replied "We will pull for more deer."

Now my friend, you be watching for Santa next year, 
To see if he has teamed up with wolves or with deer!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This poem was first printed in the Winter 1994 issue of International Wolf Magazine.

At the time, wolf biologist Diane Boyd was pursuing a PhD at the University of Montana.

My Politcal statement for Thanksgiving!

 

 

 

                Hi everybody....

Florida Statues

2011 Florida Statutes

Title XXIX PUBLIC HEALTH	Chapter 381 PUBLIC HEALTH: GENERAL PROVISIONS

381.026 Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.—

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the "Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities."

(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section and s. 381.0261, the term:

(a) "Department" means the Department of Health.

(b) "Health care facility" means a facility licensed under chapter 395.

(c) "Health care provider" means a physician licensed under chapter 458, an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, or a podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461.

(d) "Primary care provider" means a health care provider licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, or chapter 464 who provides medical services to patients which are commonly provided without referral from another health care provider, including family and general practice, general pediatrics, and general internal medicine.

(e) "Responsible provider" means a health care provider who is primarily responsible for patient care in a health care facility or provider's office.

(3) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section to promote the interests and well-being of the patients of health care providers and health care facilities and to promote better communication between the patient and the health care provider. It is the intent of the Legislature that health care providers understand their responsibility to give their patients a general understanding of the procedures to be performed on them and to provide information pertaining to their health care so that they may make decisions in an informed manner after considering the information relating to their condition, the available treatment alternatives, and substantial risks and hazards inherent in the treatments. It is the intent of the Legislature that patients have a general understanding of their responsibilities toward health care providers and health care facilities. It is the intent of the Legislature that the provision of such information to a patient eliminate potential misunderstandings between patients and health care providers. It is a public policy of the state that the interests of patients be recognized in a patient's bill of rights and responsibilities and that a health care facility or health care provider may not require a patient to waive his or her rights as a condition of treatment. This section shall not be used for any purpose in any civil or administrative action and neither expands nor limits any rights or remedies provided under any other law.

(4) RIGHTS OF PATIENTS.—Each health care facility or provider shall observe the following standards:

(a) Individual dignity.—

1. The individual dignity of a patient must be respected at all times and upon all occasions.

2. Every patient who is provided health care services retains certain rights to privacy, which must be respected without regard to the patient's economic status or source of payment for his or her care. The patient's rights to privacy must be respected to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care to the patient and with the efficient administration of the health care facility or provider's office. However, this subparagraph does not preclude necessary and discreet discussion of a patient's case or examination by appropriate medical personnel.

3. A patient has the right to a prompt and reasonable response to a question or request. A health care facility shall respond in a reasonable manner to the request of a patient's health care provider for medical services to the patient. The health care facility shall also respond in a reasonable manner to the patient's request for other services customarily rendered by the health care facility to the extent such services do not require the approval of the patient's health care provider or are not inconsistent with the patient's treatment.

4. A patient in a health care facility has the right to retain and use personal clothing or possessions as space permits, unless for him or her to do so would infringe upon the right of another patient or is medically or programmatically contraindicated for documented medical, safety, or programmatic reasons.

(b) Information.—

1. A patient has the right to know the name, function, and qualifications of each health care provider who is providing medical services to the patient. A patient may request such information from his or her responsible provider or the health care facility in which he or she is receiving medical services.

2. A patient in a health care facility has the right to know what patient support services are available in the facility.

3. A patient has the right to be given by his or her health care provider information concerning diagnosis, planned course of treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis, unless it is medically inadvisable or impossible to give this information to the patient, in which case the information must be given to the patient's guardian or a person designated as the patient's representative. A patient has the right to refuse this information.

4. A patient has the right to refuse any treatment based on information required by this paragraph, except as otherwise provided by law. The responsible provider shall document any such refusal.

5. A patient in a health care facility has the right to know what facility rules and regulations apply to patient conduct.

6. A patient has the right to express grievances to a health care provider, a health care facility, or the appropriate state licensing agency regarding alleged violations of patients' rights. A patient has the right to know the health care provider's or health care facility's procedures for expressing a grievance.

7. A patient in a health care facility who does not speak English has the right to be provided an interpreter when receiving medical services if the facility has a person readily available who can interpret on behalf of the patient.

8. A health care provider or health care facility shall respect a patient's right to privacy and should refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. Notwithstanding this provision, a health care provider or health care facility that in good faith believes that this information is relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or safety ¹of others, may make such a verbal or written inquiry.

9. A patient may decline to answer or provide any information regarding ownership of a firearm by the patient or a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in the domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient. A patient's decision not to answer a question relating to the presence or ownership of a firearm does not alter existing law regarding a physician's authorization to choose his or her patients.

10. A health care provider or health care facility may not discriminate against a patient based solely upon the patient's exercise of the constitutional right to own and possess firearms or ammunition.

11. A health care provider or health care facility shall respect a patient's legal right to own or possess a firearm and should refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination.

(c) Financial information and disclosure.—

1. A patient has the right to be given, upon request, by the responsible provider, his or her designee, or a representative of the health care facility full information and necessary counseling on the availability of known financial resources for the patient's health care.

2. A health care provider or a health care facility shall, upon request, disclose to each patient who is eligible for Medicare, before treatment, whether the health care provider or the health care facility in which the patient is receiving medical services accepts assignment under Medicare reimbursement as payment in full for medical services and treatment rendered in the health care provider's office or health care facility.

3. A primary care provider may publish a schedule of charges for the medical services that the provider offers to patients. The schedule must include the prices charged to an uninsured person paying for such services by cash, check, credit card, or debit card. The schedule must be posted in a conspicuous place in the reception area of the provider's office and must include, but is not limited to, the 50 services most frequently provided by the primary care provider. The schedule may group services by three price levels, listing services in each price level. The posting must be at least 15 square feet in size. A primary care provider who publishes and maintains a schedule of charges for medical services is exempt from the license fee requirements for a single period of renewal of a professional license under chapter 456 for that licensure term and is exempt from the continuing education requirements of chapter 456 and the rules implementing those requirements for a single 2-year period.

4. If a primary care provider publishes a schedule of charges pursuant to subparagraph 3., he or she must continually post it at all times for the duration of active licensure in this state when primary care services are provided to patients. If a primary care provider fails to post the schedule of charges in accordance with this subparagraph, the provider shall be required to pay any license fee and comply with any continuing education requirements for which an exemption was received.

5. A health care provider or a health care facility shall, upon request, furnish a person, before the provision of medical services, a reasonable estimate of charges for such services. The health care provider or the health care facility shall provide an uninsured person, before the provision of a planned nonemergency medical service, a reasonable estimate of charges for such service and information regarding the provider's or facility's discount or charity policies for which the uninsured person may be eligible. Such estimates by a primary care provider must be consistent with the schedule posted under subparagraph 3. Estimates shall, to the extent possible, be written in a language comprehensible to an ordinary layperson. Such reasonable estimate does not preclude the health care provider or health care facility from exceeding the estimate or making additional charges based on changes in the patient's condition or treatment needs.

6. Each licensed facility not operated by the state shall make available to the public on its Internet website or by other electronic means a description of and a link to the performance outcome and financial data that is published by the agency pursuant to s. 408.05(3)(k). The facility shall place a notice in the reception area that such information is available electronically and the website address. The licensed facility may indicate that the pricing information is based on a compilation of charges for the average patient and that each patient's bill may vary from the average depending upon the severity of illness and individual resources consumed. The licensed facility may also indicate that the price of service is negotiable for eligible patients based upon the patient's ability to pay.

7. A patient has the right to receive a copy of an itemized bill upon request. A patient has a right to be given an explanation of charges upon request.

(d) Access to health care.—

1. A patient has the right to impartial access to medical treatment or accommodations, regardless of race, national origin, religion, handicap, or source of payment.

2. A patient has the right to treatment for any emergency medical condition that will deteriorate from failure to provide such treatment.

3. A patient has the right to access any mode of treatment that is, in his or her own judgment and the judgment of his or her health care practitioner, in the best interests of the patient, including complementary or alternative health care treatments, in accordance with the provisions of s. 456.41.

(e) Experimental research.—In addition to the provisions of s. 766.103, a patient has the right to know if medical treatment is for purposes of experimental research and to consent prior to participation in such experimental research. For any patient, regardless of ability to pay or source of payment for his or her care, participation must be a voluntary matter; and a patient has the right to refuse to participate. The patient's consent or refusal must be documented in the patient's care record.

(f) Patient's knowledge of rights and responsibilities.—In receiving health care, patients have the right to know what their rights and responsibilities are.

(5) RESPONSIBILITIES OF PATIENTS.—Each patient of a health care provider or health care facility shall respect the health care provider's and health care facility's right to expect behavior on the part of patients which, considering the nature of their illness, is reasonable and responsible. Each patient shall observe the responsibilities described in the following summary.

(6) SUMMARY OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.—Any health care provider who treats a patient in an office or any health care facility licensed under chapter 395 that provides emergency services and care or outpatient services and care to a patient, or admits and treats a patient, shall adopt and make available to the patient, in writing, a statement of the rights and responsibilities of patients, including the following:

SUMMARY OF THE FLORIDA PATIENT'S BILL
OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Florida law requires that your health care provider or health care facility recognize your rights while you are receiving medical care and that you respect the health care provider's or health care facility's right to expect certain behavior on the part of patients. You may request a copy of the full text of this law from your health care provider or health care facility. A summary of your rights and responsibilities follows:

A patient has the right to be treated with courtesy and respect, with appreciation of his or her individual dignity, and with protection of his or her need for privacy.

A patient has the right to a prompt and reasonable response to questions and requests.

A patient has the right to know who is providing medical services and who is responsible for his or her care.

A patient has the right to know what patient support services are available, including whether an interpreter is available if he or she does not speak English.

A patient has the right to know what rules and regulations apply to his or her conduct.

A patient has the right to be given by the health care provider information concerning diagnosis, planned course of treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis.

A patient has the right to refuse any treatment, except as otherwise provided by law.

A patient has the right to be given, upon request, full information and necessary counseling on the availability of known financial resources for his or her care.

A patient who is eligible for Medicare has the right to know, upon request and in advance of treatment, whether the health care provider or health care facility accepts the Medicare assignment rate.

A patient has the right to receive, upon request, prior to treatment, a reasonable estimate of charges for medical care.

A patient has the right to receive a copy of a reasonably clear and understandable, itemized bill and, upon request, to have the charges explained.

A patient has the right to impartial access to medical treatment or accommodations, regardless of race, national origin, religion, handicap, or source of payment.

A patient has the right to treatment for any emergency medical condition that will deteriorate from failure to provide treatment.

A patient has the right to know if medical treatment is for purposes of experimental research and to give his or her consent or refusal to participate in such experimental research.

A patient has the right to express grievances regarding any violation of his or her rights, as stated in Florida law, through the grievance procedure of the health care provider or health care facility which served him or her and to the appropriate state licensing agency.

A patient is responsible for providing to the health care provider, to the best of his or her knowledge, accurate and complete information about present complaints, past illnesses, hospitalizations, medications, and other matters relating to his or her health.

A patient is responsible for reporting unexpected changes in his or her condition to the health care provider.

A patient is responsible for reporting to the health care provider whether he or she comprehends a contemplated course of action and what is expected of him or her.

A patient is responsible for following the treatment plan recommended by the health care provider.

A patient is responsible for keeping appointments and, when he or she is unable to do so for any reason, for notifying the health care provider or health care facility.

A patient is responsible for his or her actions if he or she refuses treatment or does not follow the health care provider's instructions.

A patient is responsible for assuring that the financial obligations of his or her health care are fulfilled as promptly as possible.

A patient is responsible for following health care facility rules and regulations affecting patient care and conduct.

History.—s. 1, ch. 91-127; s. 65, ch. 92-289; s. 656, ch. 95-148; s. 21, ch. 98-89; s. 178, ch. 98-166; s. 64, ch. 99-397; s. 7, ch. 2001-53; s. 2, ch. 2001-116; s. 3, ch. 2004-297; s. 12, ch. 2006-261; s. 3, ch. 2008-47; s. 2, ch. 2011-112; s. 1, ch. 2011-122.

¹Note.—The word "of" was substituted for the "or" by the editors.

From the Desk of:
William D. Harasym

Media Advisory: Covering Christie

​ Media Advisory Covering Christie Reporters focus on personality instead of policy November 13, 2013 The November 18 cover of Time magazine about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie caused a stir because of this line of text: "The Elephant in the Room." Many saw that as a swipe at Christie's weight, as well as a feeble pun about Republicans. But the bigger problem with the Time piece, as with so much of the coverage of Christie, is more fundamental: The real elephant in the room is that Christie has an actual record of governing a state, and yet journalists seem almost totally uninterested in discussing it. There is no doubt that Christie is a media darling (Extra!, 5/11). On Meet the Press (11/10/13), Time's Mark Halperin said: Chris Christie is someone who is magical in the way politicians can be magical, like our last three presidents. People like having them on TV. He's a good talker. He won. The actual Time article, while not crediting Christie with magical powers, presented him in glowing terms. Christie "has run the Garden State with combustible passion, blunt talk and the kind of bipartisan dealmaking that no one seems to do anymore," Michael Scherer writes. "He's a workhorse with a temper and a tongue, the guy who loves his mother and gets it done." To Time, the Christie story that matters is how he can get the conservative base of the Republican Party to support him. Pushing the major political parties to the "center" is a well-worn, bipartisan media pattern; it's what caused much of the press enthusiasm for John McCain in 2000 and 2008 (Extra!, 7/08). But as Jonathan Martin of the New York Times (11/11/13) wrote, "The more the news media and the establishment cheer on Mr. Christie, the more grassroots activists--especially members of the Tea Party--resent it." This framing prioritizes criticism of Christie from the right. As Time put it: Like McCain and Romney before him, Christie is wide open to attack from his right. He opposes gay marriage, but in October he called off a legal fight to block same-sex unions in New Jersey, earning the ire of Christian conservatives who promptly complained of "serious" concerns about Christie's "reliability." So Christie, after successfully blocking marriage equality in New Jersey for years with his veto, eventually gave up what increasingly appeared to be an unwinnable legal battle--that's what Time means by Christie being "wide open to attack from his right."  But what about other policy outcomes in the state Christie governs? Christie made the rounds of the Sunday chat shows on November 10 after winning a landslide election, as seemingly every journalist made clear. But the journalists avoided Christie's record as governor, instead focusing squarely on whether Christie is right-wing enough to win the Republican presidential nomination. "Can you play in places like Iowa and South Carolina?" asked ABC This Week anchor George Stephanopoulos. On NBC's Meet the Press, David Gregory wondered: "Mitt Romney told me here last week that you could save the Republican Party. Does it need saving and are you the guy to save it?" Gregory did at one point mention an actual policy issue, noting that the Wall Street Journal editorial page had deemed Christie's economic record "the biggest area of disappointment." But that was the exception, despite the fact that there's plenty to examine. New York Times reporter Kate Zernike (10/30/13) wrote one of the few pieces that focused on Christie's actual record. She noted that Christie, who won election in 2009 attacking Democrat Jon Corzine's budget gimmicks, has relied on the same kind of short-term strategies, diverting money for things like affordable housing and property tax rebates to balance the budget, and tapping funds intended for development of new sources of energy to keep the lights on in state buildings. Zernike added that Christie has issued more debt for transportation projects than any of his predecessors. Overall spending has risen 14 percent, and while state surpluses nationwide are growing, New Jersey's has shrunk to its lowest percentage in a decade. The state's bond rating is among the worst in the country. And while Christie touted the state's private-sector jobs record on all of the Sunday shows, none of the reporters interviewing him thought to bring up the state's dismal jobs performance Compared to other states, New Jersey ranks near the bottom--with the 41st highest unemployment rate, and the 44th worst job growth record (Daily Beast, 11/11/13). As media portrayals stick with the "moderate" storyline, The Nation's John Nichols (6/3/13) had a different, more factually based analysis: Christie is no moderate. He's a social conservative who opposes reproductive rights, has defunded Planned Parenthood and has repeatedly rejected attempts to restore state funding for family planning centers. He has vetoed money for clinics that provide health screenings for women, including mammograms and pap smears. He vetoed marriage equality. Christie's consistent when it comes to reading from the right's playbook. The governor announced early in his tenure that he was pulling New Jersey out of a regional carbon emissions reduction program, and then declared his intention to scale back the state's renewable energy targets. Christie, Nichols added, has a record very much like controversial Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Christie is at his most militant when it comes to implementing the austerity agenda associated with the most conservative Republican governors. There's a credible case to be made that he is "doing a Scott Walker on New Jersey," as a Garden State headline suggested in early May, after the governor proposed gutting civil service protections. Christie makes no bones about his admiration for the Wisconsin governor, whose anti-labor crusade inspired mass protests, a recall attempt and miserable job-creation numbers. But those serious issues remain off the corporate media radar as they lavish praise on the supposedly straight-talking, bipartisan Republican governor. "There is no doubt that Christie's personality is the dominant feature of his political style," as Washington Post reporter Dan Balz (11/4/13) put it. The same goes for the way media are covering Christie--which is surely exactly the way he likes it. http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/covering-christie/                     This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Long Island Girl does Good!

Natalie Portman: Hometown Heroine Posted: 08 Nov 2013 07:10 AM PST Long Island's own Natalie Portman stars in the upcoming superhero film "Thor." She's played a ballerina, a queen, a stripper and two famous Annes (Frank and Boleyn). She was named one of the 50 Most Beautiful People by People Magazine. She won the Academy Award for her performance in the psychological thriller Black Swan, along with a Golden Globe and several other major accolades. Yet during one of her nearly 20 David Letterman Show appearances, Natalie Portman told the host, "I'll always still be a kid from Long Island." Portman, who was born in Jerusalem and lived there until age 3, spent most of her formative years in Jericho, attending Solomon Schechter Day School in Glen Cove, and graduating in 1999 from Syosset High School, where she was valedictorian and also voted "Most Likely to Win Jeopardy." "Natalie was brilliant in every subject," says Jill Goldberg, her guidance counselor at Syosset High School when the actress was still known by her given name, Natalie Hershlag (Portman is her grandmother's maiden name). "She balanced her work here with her professional life seamlessly, maintaining a flawless average. She's just a brilliant, remarkable person, inside and out. I absolutely adore her." Portman studied ballet and modern dance at the American Theater Dance Workshop in New Hyde Park and attended the Usdan Center for the Creative and Performing Arts in Wheatley Heights. Her road to stardom began at age 10, when she was "discovered" at an LI pizza parlor by a Revlon scout looking for child models. By age 12, Portman was cast in her first film, Leon: The Professional. Roles followed in Heat (1995), Beautiful Girls (1996) and Mars Attacks! (1996). But despite her busy career, academics always came first—a value instilled by her parents, Dr. Avner Hershlag, chief of North Shore-LIJ's Center for Human Reproduction, and Shelley Hershlag, an artist. "Natalie's parents didn't let her work on major films during the school year," says Goldberg. "They valued education very highly." They made an exception for Portman's starring role on Broadway in The Diary of Anne Frank during her high school junior year. Natalie's grandfather's parents and his younger brother were killed in concentration camps, making it extremely personal. Promoting the play on the Today Show in 1997, she told Matt Lauer, "I read the diary at 12, and it's very close to my own family history. It's very important to remind people of the wrongs of racism and hatred." During her senior year, Portman reached superstardom as Queen Amidala in Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, famously missing its premiere to study for finals. Her studiousness paid off. Portman graduated with a 4.0 average from Syosset High and continued her education at Harvard, majoring in psychology. At the time, Portman said, "I don't care if [college] ruins my career. I'd rather be smart than a movie star." The actress lived for a time in Sea Cliff, where longtime resident and Bart's Barber Shop owner Joseph Mazzeo once cut her hair. "She came in with her mom, and I had no idea who she was," Mazzeo recalls. "She was growing her hair out, and she said, 'Give me a Mohawk.'" He later learned that she'd shaved her head for a movie roll. "Her mom looked nervous," Mazzeo says, "but Natalie told me, 'I bet you think I'm 14, but I'm 24.'" Portman, now 32, reprises her role as astrophysicist Jane Foster in Marvel's Thor: The Dark World, debuting this month—and her science cred isn't fiction. In high school, Portman co-authored a paper titled "A Simple Method to Demonstrate the Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen from Sugar," which earned her semifinalist honors in the prestigious Intel Science Talent Search. She continued her distinguished science career at Harvard, contributing to a study on memory called "Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence." She may still be "just a kid from Long Island," but with her brains, beauty and killer-acting chops, she's done LI proud.

Media Advisory The Accelerating Assault on Journalism Some media figures applaud the criminalization of investigative reporting August 27, 2013 U.S. soldier Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning's 35-year sentence represents the harshest punishment issued to date for providing media with evidence of government wrongdoing (Forbes, 8/21/13). She is the first whistleblower to be convicted under the Espionage Act, ratifying the new reality that those who give the press information that the government wants to keep secret will henceforth be treated as spies. Manning's sentence is only the latest example of the criminalization of investigative journalism that has greatly intensified in the Obama era (Extra!, 9/11). While whistleblowers have been the chief targets of the harsh crackdown on media challenges to official secrecy, journalists themselves are increasingly in the government's sights. Fox News' James Rosen, for example, was declared a "co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act in the case of State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, accused of leaking information about North Korea; this allowed the Justice Department to read Rosen's emails, an intrusion on freedom of the press that is forbidden under the Privacy Protection Act unless a journalist is considered to have committed a crime (WashingtonPost.com, 6/20/13). The Justice Department subpoenaed records for more than 30 phone and fax lines used by scores of Associated Press journalists in an attempt to find the source of a story about a thwarted attack by militants in Yemen (NBCNews.com, 5/20/13). AP president Gary Pruitt (Face the Nation, 5/19/13) said the secret subpoenas were carried out "so sweeping[ly], so secretively, so abusively and harassingly and overbroad, that...it is an unconstitutional act." Barrett Brown, a freelance journalist who has written for Vanity Fair and the Guardian, is in jail facing charges--stemming from his association with the hacker activist group Anonymous--that carry a potential sentence of more than a century in jail. The allegations mainly revolve around Brown posting a link to data hacked from private intelligence agencies, some of which turned out to be encrypted credit card information. But as Peter Ludlow argued in the Nation (6/18/13), what attracted the government's attention to Brown in the first place was his journalism, which used information derived from hacking to expose private intelligence operations--like a plan to neutralize Glenn Greenwald's defense of WikiLeaks by undermining them both.... The plan called for "disinformation," exploiting strife within the organization and fomenting external rivalries--"creating messages around actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization," as well as a plan to submit fake documents and then call out the error. Journalists who find out too much about U.S. intelligence operations risk becoming targeted by allied security forces--as can their loved ones, as David Miranda, partner of Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, found out on August 18 when he was detained and interrogated at London's Heathrow Airport for nine hours under Schedule 7 of Britain's Terrorism Act of 2000. Greenwald (8/18/13) wrote: The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well [as] the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists," and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger (8/19/13) revealed that the GCHQ, the British counterpart of the NSA, destroyed computers at the newspaper's office in a futile attempt to impede Greenwald's NSA reporting: The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the center of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: Hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."... And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred--with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. As Rusbridger pointed out, the destruction of the Guardian's property won't stop the newspaper from reporting on the documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, copies of which are cached all over the world. The vandalism did succeed, however, in sending a message: If journalists dare to report information that the U.S. government wants to keep secret, they will be treated as criminals, spies and terrorists. A troubling number of prominent U.S. journalists seem to have no problem with this. Time senior national correspondent Michael Grunwald wrote on Twitter (8/17/13): "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange," referring to the WikiLeaks editor-in-chief. Grunwald later deleted the tweet, citing the argument that "it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in" (NewYorker.com, 8/19/13). The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin (8/20/13) compared the release of classified information about government spying to the assassination of political leaders like Martin Luther King: Just as it would be "lunatic" to be grateful for the deaths of King and Robert Kennedy because they led to gun control legislation, Snowden's supporters are crazy to argue that he "may have violated the law, but the outcome has been so worthwhile." Toobin went on to defend Miranda's detention on CNN (Anderson Cooper 360, 8/20/13), saying, "Our prisons are full of drug mules" and "He wasn't sent to the gulag." That would be more reassuring if the notion of the U.S. government sending journalists to prison--or even killing them by long-distance--were a preposterous hypothetical that would never happen in real life (FAIR Blog, 6/30/13): The U.S. military has repeatedly targeted and killed journalists, claiming that reporters are legitimate targets. Washington imprisoned Al-Jazeera camera operator Sami al-Hajj for six years without a trial at Guantanamo; documents released through WikiLeaks later revealed that a primary reason for holding al-Hajj was to try to extract information from him about Al-Jazeera's newsgathering operations. When Yemen was about to release Abdulelah Haider Shaye, a journalist who had reported on the U.S.'s secret drone war in that country, Barack Obama personally intervened to make sure Shaye stayed in prison.                     This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

"Bears Interrupted" By Wendy

 

New post on Bears Interrupted Bears Interrupted by Wendy The reason for me starting to write this blog was because of the profound effect a certain 700lb grizzly bear had on me whilst working with him in 2011. Boo's story is a tragic one and when I visit him there is still a deep sadness in his eyes, his life was truly interrupted. Beautiful Boo More recently there was Clover the Kermode Bear who through no fault of his own now resides in a zoo.   After he was successfully rehabilitated and released, humans caused his life to change direction and now his future is behind bars and then there is the very sad story of Terry and Blair the two orphaned grizzlies that became a little too confident around humans and of course this lead to their demise in the form of euthanization by the Conservation Service.   Precious Clover Tika, Terry and Blair On Friday 11th October 2013, a day that will haunt me forever, I had taken an early morning walk along the beautiful Columbia River here, I followed the footprints of the bear that frequents the area and as always felt at complete peace in my surroundings, that was about to change. Walking Alongside the Bears I received a message from a friend who works for Parks Canada that asked me about Tika's ear tag numbers and collar..... my heart jumped then proceeded to sink.... what did that mean?  Her message was shortly followed by another message from Angelika Langen from Northern Lights Wildlife Society telling me that unfortunately Tika had been hit by a vehicle on Hwy 93 in Kootenay National Park and was killed, he had been eating a carcass of a ungulate and there was dense fog in the area at the time of the incident.    Words alone cannot describe the emotion that hit me like a semi truck driving too fast on a Highway, I was in total shock and could not comprehend what I had heard.  This beautiful little boy bear who fought to survive when the odds were stacked against him, went forth into the wilderness on his day of release with a smile on his grizzly little face, excitement in his step and so much hope....... his end is a tragedy of the worst kind. Again another BEAR INTERRUPTED. Things need to change to allow these bears at least a slight chance to survive and stay wild and we as homo sapiens HAVE TO help with this, we need to learn to co-exist with bears.  Grizzlies like Terry, Blair and Tika need to be released into an environment which allows them the freedom to roam the distances they need to, to survive without human fragmentation and interference.  I am not a scientist but I do know that the rehabilitated grizzlies are always released back into their home ranges because of genetics, I ask the question now, is this truly necessary?  The grizzly is a species of concern and surely when a grizzly is rehabilitated and released it should be taken into an area where they are protected and can grow into adults, a prime example of a perfect location is the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Refuge on the North West Coast of BC.   This years tragedies are just more proof that habitat fragmentation is detrimental to the Grizzly Bear. The other BIG issue is our Highways and Railtracks.  Things are improving a little with the animal overpasses, underpasses and fencing but still so many creatures lose their lives because of humans in such a hurry to get somewhere, we need signs and more penalties for those who do not respect the sensitive environment they travel through and the animals that reside therein.  I am now in the process of writing letters and and telling Tika's story to highlight the issues, his death will not be in vain, I will do everything I can to make a difference. Along with all these obstacles they still allow a trophy hunt...... SERIOUSLY something is very VERY wrong.  If we lose the grizzly bear our precious eco systems will be compromised and ultimately the planet will pay the biggest price. This is the last picture I took of Tika on his release day, I still cannot believe he has gone.....and I will forever feel him in the breeze. ALWAYS in my Heart Tika Wendy | October 13, 2013 at 11:43 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p28lrd-80 Comment    See all comments    Like http://bearsinterrupted.com/2013/10/13/bears-interrupted-2/

Republicans Compromise on Towel Service!

 

New post on Malia Litman's Blog Republicans Compromise on Towel Service by malialitman Has Fox News ever been critical of the Republican Party? They have now. In a recent clip from Greta Van Sustern, the Republicans were identified as people unconcerned with the average American, and totally focused on themselves. The story revealed that the Republicans have deemed their swimming pool, basketball courts, sauna and steam room as "essential items". Taxpayers are still paying for maintenance and cleaning of these work-out areas. The GOP has compromised by forfeiting the towel service. Just to review, let's consider what is considered to be "essential" in the way of government services. "Essential activities" are defined as those services designed to protect life and property or services essential to the national security interest." For example "non-essential" services include :  The National Institutes of Health will stop accepting new patients for clinical research and stop answering hotline calls about medical questions.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will stop its seasonal flu program and have a "significantly reduced capacity to respond to outbreak investigations."  The Department of Housing and Urban Development will not be able to provide local housing authorities with additional money for housing vouchers.  The Department of Homeland Security will no longer operate its E-Verify program, which means that businesses will not be able to check on the legal immigration status of prospective employees during the shutdown.  The Justice Department will suspend many civil cases for as long as the government is shut down.  The National Park Service will close more than 400 national parks and museums, including Yosemite National Park in California, Alcatraz in San Francisco, and the Statue of Liberty in New York.  The Environmental Protection Agency will close down almost entirely during a shutdown, save for operations around Superfund sites.  Many of the Labor Department's regulatory offices will close, including the Wage and Hour Division and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (The Mine Safety and Health Administration will, however, stay open.)  The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees the vast U.S. derivatives market, will largely shut down.  The Social Security Administration won't have enough employees to do things like help recipients replace their benefit cards or schedule new hearings for disability cases.  The Veterans Benefits Administration will be unable to process education and rehabilitation benefits. The Board of Veterans' Appeals will be unable to hold hearings. What's more, if the shutdown lasts for more than two or three weeks, the Department of Veterans Affairs has said that it may not have enough money to pay disability claims and pension payments. That could affect some 3.6 million veterans.  The Department of Agriculture will cut off support for the Women, Infants and Children program, which helps pregnant women and new moms buy healthy food and provides nutritional information and health care referrals. The program reaches some 9 million Americans. How can the GOP reconcile paying themselves salary, and continuing to charge the American people for use of their exercise facilities, which the deem to be "essential services", but 9 million women and children are unable to buy healthy food? No wonder the Republican Party has fallen to an all-time low approval ratings. Now only 24% of Americans have a favorable view of Republicans, which is the very lowest level since the poll was started. A whopping 70% of Americans recognize that Republicans are putting politics ahead of what is best for the country. Gallup Polls confirm these declining numbers, finding that only 28% of Americans still have a favorable view of Republicans. That is the lowest rating since Gallup started asking questions 21 years ago! Even when they get their towels back, it's doubtful whether they can clean up the mess they've created. malialitman | October 11, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pwVeA-5qD Comment    See all comments    Like http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/republicans-compromise-on-towel-service/