San Francisco (CNN)The last time Jodie Sweetin stood on the steps outside the red-doored Victorian row house featured in the “Full House” opening credits, she was about 6 years old.

The actress, 34, remembers it vividly.
She had just wrapped the first season of the series and went to San Francisco with her parents for a family vacation. Her mother got the address for the now iconic house from the show’s creator Jeff Franklin so they could pay a quick visit.
    Sweetin still has the hastily snapped photo her mom took of her, clad in a pink sweater, standing on the front steps.
    “I haven’t been here since,” Sweetin told CNN on a chilly afternoon last week as she and the cast gathered at the home to celebrate Season 2 of the spin-off “Fuller House.” “It’s great to be back.”
    The cast reunion at the house was made possible by Franklin, who recently purchased the home for about $4 million.
    Franklin admitted it was a surreal experience seeing the new and legacy cast members at the home.
    In the new series, which debuted its first season back in February, Candace Cameron Bure plays a widowed DJ Fuller who is raising three boys with the help of her sister (Sweetin) and best friend Kimmy Gibbler (Andrea Barber).


    The three leads were joined by Bob Saget, Dave Coulier, Scott Weinger and the children and adult actors from “Fuller House” at the event.
    “It’s a great moment for me,” he said. “I just felt like we should keep this house in the family.”
    The purchase comes with an added benefit: The series will soon get to shoot new footage of the house, something that hasn’t been done since the took the original exterior shots in 1987. (The interior was never featured on “Full House.”)
    “We can shoot in 4K and maybe we’ll bring the cast up and have them come out of the house something fun,” Franklin said. “So it’s just great to have the house back — we got everybody else back.”
    Indeed, the chance to see the Tanners and friends back in action was an initial draw for the series, as was speculation about the possible return from former child stars Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. They did not appear in Season 1 or the upcoming sophomore season.
    But Barber says viewers stuck around because it was a reunion that didn’t disappoint.
    “It’s like reconnecting with old friends that you grew up with,” she said. “So many fans have told us that they’re so grateful that we’ve come back to do this show because they feel like ‘Full House’ was their own family — like they grew up in the Tanner household.”
    Sweetin in some ways feels the same. As an only child, she said she was grateful for a chance to spend time with the TV family who became like surrogate siblings in her real life.
    “I’ve told Candace this before, but she was always somebody I’ve looked up to and that has been a really important piece of my life, whether she knows it or not,” she said, getting choked up. “And so, getting to do this with her and be her little sister again, it means a lot.”
    Like in the show itself, it doesn’t take much for the actors to share a hug or exchange kind words about one another. Sweetin thinks this is reflected on screen, which is why fans keep coming back.
    Saget has another theory.
    “If you think about television during the Cold War, it was ‘Leave it to Beaver,’ during ‘[Vietnam], we had ‘Happy Days.’ When the country goes and does some things that upset people and the world is upset — and we’re clearly in a disruptive time — this is such a nice thing to turn to,” he said. “It’s nostalgic … and it is something you can watch with your family.”
    Whatever the reason, “Fuller House” continues to enjoy success. Netflix does not release ratings, but some estimates have it ranked as the most-watched TV series currently airing.
    Saget compared the global nature of their appeal to “Star Trek.”
    Coulier didn’t miss a beat, chiming in: “We’re living long and prospering.”

    Source article at =>

    (CNN)In the movie “The Godfather,” Vito Corleone was not making deals, he was making offers people could not refuse. He was not giving orders either, he was giving suggestions that sounded like orders, because they were backed by unspeakable threats. Unfortunately, this behavior is not just a creation of Mario Puzo’s imagination, nor is it limited to criminal organizations. In most countries without the rule of law, this is the way governments make economic policy. In the better ones, at least physical threats are spared, but it is simply because economic ones are more than sufficient.


    Do not get me wrong. In the short term, this Corleone-like strategy is very effective. It does not increase the deficit and in most cases it does not even require legislative intervention.
    But in the long term, it corrodes the foundations of a market economy, and that’s a much bigger problem in the making. A market economy is based on known and impartial rules, which apply to everybody in the same way. It is only in this context that markets can work their magic — spurring innovation and investments, creating jobs and providing to everyone better products at cheaper prices.

    Trump’s picks will make sex less fun

    Trump is rewriting the rules

    Kellyanne, talk to your boss

    If President Trump abuses power

    Trump and Romney bromance

    Trump is a sore winner

    When a president-elect (or worse, a president) changes the rules depending on his whims, business people cannot focus on what matters: innovation, talent development, expansion in new markets. They are too busy making sure they are not on the wrong side of the government in an environment when the game can change at any moment. They end up spending an enormous amount of time and resources in what economists call “rent-seeking” and what normal people call “sucking up.”
    This behavior can spread like an infection. If everybody follows a well-established and impartial law, everyone in general stays healthy. But if other people see that random acts of executive power can help or hurt them, they start to ask for favors, exceptions and special deals. It proves impossible not to join the crowd. It is like waiting in line. Once some people start to cut the line, it becomes unbearable not to join them, because by waiting patiently one does not go ahead, one goes backward. This is when a capitalist economy degenerates into chaos, possibly taking the world’s economy along with it.

    Join us on Twitter and Facebook

    I hope to be wrong here, but I fear that President-elect Trump has abandoned the Republican pro-market stand to embrace an old-fashioned mercantilism. It is the dawn of a crony capitalist system in America.

    Source article at =>

    (CNN)American politics shifted drastically on November 8, but the scientific facts of climate change remain the same. This year will break all global temperature records by the biggest margins ever. We’re on a real hot streak — and not a good one. Worse yet, global sea-ice recently hit record lows, as temperatures in the Arctic Ocean rose more than 20 degrees. Mother Nature doesn’t negotiate — regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, climate change threatens America’s future.

    Now, more than ever, it’s critical that US businesses reshape America’s energy infrastructure in a positive way and lead our country’s transition to clean energy. This week the Risky Business Project, which I chair with Mike Bloomberg and Hank Paulson, released a new report showing how an economy that runs on clean, low-carbon sources can create millions of jobs, all the while providing a critical boost to America’s economy. How? Well, electrifying our economy is key. This means adopting everything from electric cars to electric heating systems, scaling up our reliance on solar and wind power and pairing those technologies with low-carbon energy that’s used more efficiently.




        Obama’s climate change plans at stake


      The private sector will need to invest in this transition at a scale and speed comparable to the computer revolution. Over the past decade, the United States has spent $350 billion on computers and software every year. By comparison, we need investment in the clean energy economy to reach $320 billion annually.
      Businesses led the IT revolution, transforming the way we work and communicate. Similarly, businesses can help transform America’s economy to provide more energy, better services and a national transportation system that is cleaner and more efficient. Upfront capital expenditures in new energy infrastructure will also deliver healthy, long-term returns while reducing our annual fuel costs over time. Through 2050, businesses and consumers can expect an average of $366 billion per year in fuel savings.
      Transitioning to clean energy will not only reduce America’s economic risk from climate change but will also increase the resilience of our infrastructure, protect public health and create job opportunities across regions and sectors of the economy. Wind power will create jobs in the wind-rich central regions, while the sunny western and southern regions will profit from solar. New local jobs will be created in manufacturing, construction and utilities. In construction alone, 800,000 new jobs are expected by 2050.

      Join us on Twitter and Facebook

      Make no mistake, this transition is already underway, and the markets are trending toward clean energy. In many places, the cost curves have already been crossed. The costs of solar and wind technologies have been plummeting over the last several years, and are projected to keep doing so over the next decade. Since 2008, for instance, rooftop solar costs have dropped by 54%.
      In 2015, clean energy investments outpaced those by oil and gas companies. This is good news, because we know that by midcentury we will need to have reduced our carbon pollution by a formidable 80%, and this transition won’t happen overnight. One thing is clear: We can’t afford to go backward. Now is not the time to build fossil fuel power plants that will operate for half a century.
      Clean energy will make us healthier, safer and more prosperous. A retreat to a fossil fuel economy will risk our nation’s health, wealth and global leadership. If our next president refuses to take action, American business people must, more than ever, lead this transition for the sake of our climate, our country and our economic security — and for their bottom lines.

      Source article at =>

        Recommended Products

      • Revolution 6-90 - Lifetime Access - Trial My group coaching program where I guide you towards creating a $6,000 /mo digital product business in 90 days. 12 week training, live hangout and mastermind sessions and private forum.
      • Unstoppable Tube Profits Unstoppable Tube Profit shows you how to make cash using the power of YouTube videos.
      • Brand Authority "Discover How To Be Everywhere, Stand Out From Your Competition And Build An Incredible Brand People Will Remember..."Find Out The Exact Steps To Gaining Trust And Authority In The Market Using The Power of Branding!
      • Linked Messenger without Footrpint Linkedin automated messenger system sending unlimited messages to 1st level contacts

      WASHINGTON – U.S. President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate professional wrestling magnate and former Senate candidate Linda McMahon as his choice to head the Small Business Administration, transition officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

      The announcement was expected later on Wednesday.

      McMahon, 68, is a co-founder and former CEO of the professional wrestling franchise WWE, which is based in Stamford, Connecticut. She ran unsuccessfully for a U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut in 2010. She was an early supporter of Trump’s presidential campaign.

      The SBA, which has at least one office in every U.S. state, provides support to small businesses such as extending loans and making sure they get a percentage of federal contracts.

      Trump’s announcement, a copy of which was seen by Reuters, said McMahon would be a key player in his effort to generate stronger job growth and roll back federal regulations. He said she had helped the WWE grow from a 13-person operation to a publicly traded global enterprise with more than 800 employees worldwide. Donald Trump is a WWE Hall of Fame member.

      “Linda has a tremendous background and is widely recognized as one of the country’s top female executives advising businesses around the globe,” Trump said in the announcement.

      McMahon said her goal as the SBA chief would be to promote small businesses and help them grow and thrive.

      “Our small businesses are the largest source of job creation in our country,” she said.

      Leon Halip via Getty Images

      (Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by James Dalgleish)

      Source article at =>

        Recommended Products

      • VideoNova 2 - OTO1 VideoNova is a YouTube Video Player on Steroids. The “stealth” tactic to create a hook for your videos that’s so powerful, your viewers won’t even know you are selling to them and definitely won’t even be able to turn away. 3 Sites License Only
      • OnLine Support and chat system Pop Chat - Regular License With Pop Chat OnLine support and chat system you can boost your sign ups, sales, affiliate commissions, service orders, and anything else you do online…
      • Dark Post Engine - The Ultimate Facebook Spy Tool 2-in-1 FB Ad Tool extracts and archives the exact ad and landing page your competitors are using. Eliminate the guesswork out of your online advertising.
      • SociBoom MAX LITE Software Gets BUYERS Hands-FREE With REAL Human Engagement On Autopilot.

      WASHINGTON President-elect Donald Trump has picked Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to serve as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, his former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told reporters Wednesday.

      Pruitt has been a vocal critic of EPA regulations and defender of fossil fuel interests. Lawyers for Devon Energy, one of his state’s biggest oil and gas companies, authored a letter Pruitt sent to the EPA criticizing estimates on emissions from natural gas drilling sites, The New York Times reported in 2014

      The Times published 84 pages of correspondence between Pruitt and Devon, which it described as evidence of an “unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda.”

      The Trump transition team has looked at Pruitt’s state as a model for a looser regulatory approach to fossil fuel development despite the fact that Oklahoma is being rocked literally by earthquakes linked to underground disposal of wastewater from oil and gas operations. 

      Pruitt was first elected attorney general in 2010. His online biography describes him as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,” and says he “established Oklahoma’s first federalism unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government.”

      Under Pruitt’s lead, Oklahoma was one of two dozen states to file suit against the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s regulatory effort to curb emissions from power plants. Pruitt said he would ensure that the power plant rules, and other regulatory efforts from the current administration, “will … not survive his presidency.”

      He told a 2014 meeting of oil and gas executives that “there is a reason to have an agency called the EPA, and it has served a historical purpose I believe is vital to this country.” He suggested, however, that President Barack Obama’s EPA had been anti-fossil fuels.

      “I will say to you today that the historical purpose EPA has served is not what is occurring,” he said, according to Tulsa World.

      (The fact that Pruitt thinks the EPA should exist might be seen as some small consolation, since Trump once said on the campaign trail that he might eliminate the “Department of Environmental,” which is not a real thing.)

      The National Institute on Money In State Politics database shows that Pruitt has brought in nearly $325,000 in donations from the natural resources energy sector. Oil and gas tycoon Harold Hamm from Oklahoma who has been discussed as a potential Trump pick to head the Department of Energy  led Pruitt’s 2013 re-election campaign

      Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate’s most vocal critic of the idea that human activity is causing climate change, called Pruitt “one of [his] closest personal friends” and said he is well-suited for the job.

      “He’s very familiar with all the issues,” Inhofe told reporters Wednesday afternoon. “He’s been involved in every issue having to to do with the EPA that I have been involved with. He would be very exciting.”

      Environmentalists swiftly bashed Pruitt’s selection.

      “It’s often said that personnel is policy, and President-elect Trump’s decision to nominate someone who has spent his career catering to Big Polluters speaks volumes,” League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said in a statement. “All people in this country have a right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and enjoy the economic and health benefits of the clean energy revolution, and it’s vitally important that we have an EPA administrator who respects those rights.”

      Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz (D) told reporters that Pruitt’s selection is “the worst-case scenario when it comes to clean air, clean water.” He pledged that he and other senators who care about climate change would “pursue every procedure we can” to block his nomination although they would need the support of at least some Republicans to do so. 

      Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming minority leader, said in a statement that Pruitt has shown a “reluctance to accept the facts or science on climate change” and “has a troubling history of advocating on behalf of big oil at the expense of public health.”

      “I expect he will have to answer many tough questions throughout the nomination process to address these significant concerns,” Schumer said.

      Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a moderate Democrat from North Dakota who has been more sympathetic to industry concerns than others in her party, said she doesn’t really know Pruitt but will give him a “fair evaluation.”

      Laura Barron-Lopez contributed reporting.

      Source article at =>

      A Florida woman has been indicted after authorities said she sent death threats to a parent whose child died in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, allegedly because she believes the massacre was all a hoax.

      Lucy Richards, 57, of Tampa, was charged Wednesday with four counts of transmitting threats, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida announced in a statement.

      According to a copy of the indictment obtained by The Huffington Post, Richards, who was arrested Monday, is accused of making the series of threats against the parent in early January.

      “You gonna die. Death is coming to you real soon,” one recorded message said.

      A written message warned the parent: “Look behind you it is death.”

      Mike Segar / Reuters
      A Florida woman is accused of sending death threats to a parent who lost hisson in the 2012 massacreat Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

      CBS Miami identified the targeted parent as a father whose 6-year-old son was among the 20 children and six adults killed in the Dec. 14, 2012, attack in Newtown, Connecticut. The shooter, Adam Lanza, 20, killed himself.

      In a statement released to the media, the father expressed gratitude to the authorities responsible for Richards’ arrest.

      “We are comforted to know that the system is working to protect the victims of violent crime from re-victimization by potentially violent Hoaxers,” the statement read.

      Prosecutors said Richards’ belief that the shooting never happened likely motivated her to make the threats against the parent, who now lives in South Florida.

      Richards is scheduled to appear in court on Dec. 19. If convicted, each count carries a maximum term of five years in prison.

      Source article at =>

      By the end of the century, a new study warns, “extreme rainfall events” will become both more intense and more common. And current U.S. infrastructure is no match for all those future floods.

      The study, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that in some areas of the United States, the number of extreme rainfall events could increase by more than 400 percent by the year 2100. Thanks to climate change, those storms could also grow in intensity — by as much as 70 percent said the study, conducted by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

      The result of all this? The study’s lead author, Andreas Prein, called it a “horror scenario” where repeated extreme flooding would unleash great damage on American communities. Think of the storms that devastated areas of Louisiana, Texas, West Virginia and North Carolina this year.

      Climate change is warming up the Earth’s atmosphere, which allows it to capture and hold more water. A moister atmosphere leads to rainier conditions. And there’s little doubt that these climate trends will continue.

      “I think this is something we can be pretty certain of,” Prein told HuffPost. “This is well understood from a basic physical understanding.”

      The extreme rainfall predicted in the study would hit hardest along the Gulf Coast, Southwest and Atlantic Coast regions of the country, all of which already have moister-than-average atmospheres thanks to their proximity to oceans, Prein said.

      The study used a complex climate model developed by Prein and his co-authors to simulate how previous storms between the years 2000 and 2013 might have changed had they occurred in a climate that was 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer — roughly the expected temperature increase by 2100 should greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

      While the model sees a wetter future for some parts of the country, it predicts drier conditions in other areas by the end of the century. In Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska, for example, the study predicts that moderate rainfall events will decrease significantly, making parts of the Midwest more prone to drought. At the same time, extreme rainfall events could also increase in those areas, leading to flooding.

      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      By 2100, some regions of the U.S. will facemuch greaterrisk of more frequent extreme rainfall events than others, according to the new study.

      A separate study, published in October in the journal Science Advances, concluded that climate change is increasing the risk of megadroughts — droughts that last more than 35 years — in the U.S.

      The idea that climate change can lead to both wet and dry extremes is not as contradictory as it might sound. That’s because a warmer atmosphere also evaporates moisture from soil and plants at a higher rate, said Cornell earth and atmospheric sciences professor Toby Ault, the lead author of the megadrought study. The rainfall from sudden, extreme downpours can’t completely offset that moisture loss since soil has only a limited capacity to absorb water during such storms, as the U.S. Geological Survey notes.

      “In a changing climate, we expect extremes to get, well, more extreme,” Ault told HuffPost.

      To alleviate these dire forecasts, action must be taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, Ault and Prein agreed. More robust infrastructure that is suited to a stormier future would also be wise.

      The former approach, Prein argued, could ultimately prove less expensive and more effective. But the clock is ticking — many scientists warn that extreme weather events are already becoming more common.

      “If we cannot avoid this, it will mean we will be living in a world much more prone to something like flash fooding,” Prein said. “We’d have to invest tremendous amounts of infrastructure and resources to build up our resilience, which is much more expensive than to act now and try to avoid going along this path.”

      Joseph Erbentraut covers promising innovations and challenges in the areas of food and water. In addition, Erbentraut explores the evolving ways Americans are identifying and defining themselves. Follow Erbentraut on Twitter at @robojojo. Tips? Email

      Source article at =>

      (CNN)Natalia Prez woke up on November 9 and logged onto her computer and clicked on a link for “Application for Certificate of Citizenship”

      Her gut tied itself in knots, as she wondered about the next four years with President-elect Donald Trump: How will people view me? What will change legally for me? How will life change for my half-Mexican, half-Jewish child?
      Prez realized her post-election day fears might not be reasonable, especially given her years-long status as a legal US resident. Prez came to the US in 2002 as a student, earned her PhD from Princeton University, and teaches Renaissance literature at the University of Southern California as an assistant professor. Married to an American, Prez never worried about what she once considered the marginal difference between being a legal US resident versus a US citizen.
        But Trump’s election has changed the way she thinks about things.
        “I’ve been so nervous and frightened since,” Prez told CNN in a recent interview. Filling out her citizenship application, she adds, “This is my insurance policy. I need to do something to change my legal status, to make sure, that not just me, but my family, is protected.”
        That fear is driving legal US citizens across the country to act. Figures from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services show 718,430 applications were filed from October 2015 — June 2016. That’s a 25% increase compared to the year prior. USCIS has not released data since June 2016.
        Trump, during the campaign trail, maintained he would deport immigrants in the US with criminal records, not focusing on immigrants in the US residing legally and lawfully. But Prez’s husband, Sam Steinberg, who is also a USC assistant professor, doesn’t trust Trump’s words.
        “We have someone who’s shown himself to be unpredictable, who is about to take the Presidency,” Steinberg said, saying citizenship for his wife is simply, protection. “He’s making threats against me, and people like me, and people like my family. It would be silly not to be afraid. It would be irresponsible to not be afraid of what he could do or what he might do.”
        Trump has had a particularly contentious relationship with Mexican Americans, drawing scrutiny for remarks he made launching his campaign in June 2015 calling some undocumented immigrants along the US southern border “rapists.”
        Trump’s election has had a direct impact on the Loyola Law School’s Immigrant Justice Clinic, flooding their offices with requests. The community-based immigration clinic in Los Angeles helps immigrants with the naturalization and citizenship process.
        “The demand is insatiable,” says Emily Robinson, the co-founder of the clinic. “It has tripled our demand for our services. And that’s only the people we can answer the phone calls for. There are people we just can’t meet with.”
        What legal residents are seeking is a sense of relief that Maria Ivette Diaz, an immigrant from Mexico, shared as she was sworn in as a new US citizen at her naturalization ceremony in Chicago.
        “Right now, it’s just a relief for me, because of all the comments that our President-elect has made. I just feel safe now,” said Diaz, beaming as she took photos at the ceremony. She added, “I’m going to make sure I vote, every election. I’m gonna make sure I count.”
        Natalia Prez, with her education, marital and job status, anticipates a smooth process towards her own citizenship. But if she is feeling fear in Trump’s America, she wonders, how are other immigrants feeling who reside in the US without her safety net?
        “Though I’m not feeling unwelcome in my immediate community, the larger community that is the United States, I am feeling a little bit unwelcome. That I am Mexican, that I am a woman, that I am an immigrant. And that’s all I’ll be. That there are people who will not look past that.”

        Source article at =>

        (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump picked Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, to serve as the administrator of the Small Business Administration, his transition announced Wednesday.

        “Linda has a tremendous background and is widely recognized as one of the country’s top female executives advising businesses around the globe,” Trump said in a statement. “She helped grow WWE from a modest 13-person operation to a publicly traded global enterprise with more than 800 employees in offices worldwide.”
          He continued, “Linda is going to be a phenomenal leader and champion for small businesses and unleash America’s entrepreneurial spirit all across the country.”
          McMahon is the co-founder of the professional wrestling franchise WWE along with her husband, Vince McMahon, and twice a former Republican Senate candidate from Connecticut. She stepped down from her duties at WWE in 2009 and ran two failed bids for the Senate in 2010 and 2012.
          She’s donated $6 million in August and September to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC that supported Trump’s presidential bid.
          She tweeted on Wednesday, “Honored to be appointed by President-Elect @realDonaldTrump to serve as head of @SBAgov advocating for our small businesses & entrepreneurs!”
          McMahon will have to be approved by the Senate before she becomes the administrator of the SBA. However, Sen. Dick Blumenthal, who ran against McMahon in 2010, told CNN’s Manu Raju that he’d likely vote for her. He called her a reasonable voice in Trump’s economic team.
          McMahon wasn’t always a fan. During the Republican primary, she told Yahoo’s Katie Couric that she was offended by Trump’s comments about women, calling them “deplorable.”
          “He’s not helping, certainly, to put women in the best light,” McMahon said. “Maybe he regrets them, maybe he doesn’t. I realize he punches hard when he punches back, but that’s just over the top.”
          But after the primaries, McMahon told the Associated Press that even though Trump wasn’t her first choice for the nomination, she became a strong supporter of the business mogul.
          “Once you’re his friend, he is loyal to the end,” she said. “He’s an incredibly loyal, loyal friend.”

          Source article at =>

          Jack Welch Fast Facts

          (CNN)Here is a look at Jack Welch’s life, former CEO of General Electric.

          Birth date:
          November 19, 1935
          Birth place: Peabody, Massachusetts
          Birth name: John Francis Welch, Jr.
            Father: John Francis Welch, Sr., a train conductor
            Mother: Grace (Andrews) Welch
            Marriages: Suzy Wetlaufer, journalist (April 24, 2004-present); Jane Beasley, corporate lawyer (1989-2002, divorced); Carolyn B. Osburn (1959-1987, divorced)
            Children: with Carolyn Osburn: Katherine; John; Anne; Mark
            Education: University of Massachusetts, 1957, B.S. Chemical Engineering; University of Illinois, 1960, M.S., Ph.D. Chemical Engineering
            Other Facts:
            Head of Jack Welch, LLC, established in 2007.
            Media had given him the nickname “Neutron Jack” for his no-nonsense approach to business.
            Wrote a weekly column in Business Week with his wife Suzy called “The Welch Way.”
            Begins career at GE in the Chemical Development Organization as a chemical engineer.
            1972 He is appointed general manager of the worldwide plastics division and becomes a vice president.
            1979 – Vice Chairman and Executive Officer.
            1981 – He is appointed Chairman and CEO, the youngest CEO that General Electric Corporation (GE) has ever had.
            1999 – Fortune magazine names Welch “Manager of the Century.”
            September 2001 – Steps down as GE chairman and CEO and is replaced by Jeffrey Immelt.
            July 3, 2003 – Announcement is made that his ex-wife Jane Beasley Welch will receive an undisclosed lump sum divorce settlement.
            April 13, 2007 – Makes a failed attempt, with other investors, to buy the Boston Globe from New York Times Co.
            June 21, 2009 – Pays more than $2 million for 12% stake in Chancellor University System LLC which delivers online education. The MBA program will become the Jack Welch Management Institute.
            July 5, 2009 – Is hospitalized and later released after suffering a bacterial infection.
            November 2011 – Sells the Jack Welch Management Institute to Strayer University for $7 million. The sale is a 70-30 split with Chancellor University; Welch gets the 70%.
            October 9, 2012 – Welch and wife Suzy resign as Fortune magazine and Reuters contributors after his controversial tweet regarding the Obama administration and September unemployment data was criticized by Fortune.
            April 4, 2015 – Harper Collins releases “The Real-Life MBA,” the new book written by Welch and his wife Suzy.
            December 2, 2016 – Welch is named to President-elect Donald Trump’s newly formed President’s Strategic and Policy Forum. The group will provide insight and opinions about jobs and the economy.

            Source article at =>

            On Monday, a federal appeals court ruled against three track and field athletes who had sued the University of Pennsylvania and the NCAA on the grounds that they were employees who did not receive fair compensation under federal wage and hour laws.

            The ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest setback for college athletes in their multi-front fight for compensation and labor rights. The panel of judges said the Penn athletes did not qualify as employees who were subject to federal minimum wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A federal district court had previously ruled against them in February.

            And yet, the outcome may have a silver lining for some college athletes. A concurring opinion from the court could point to a victory in a similar case filed earlier this year.

            “If I was the NCAA, I would not necessarily be celebrating this ruling,” economist Ted Tatos told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. Tatos specializes in antitrust and labor issues and has followed various NCAA cases relating to both.

            Like other courts before it, the 7th Circuit relied heavily on the NCAA’s “tradition of amateurism” in its ruling. Despite rule changes that have rendered the exact definition of “amateurism” somewhat ambiguous, it has remained a long-standing successful legal tool for the organization that governs college sports. 

            “The long tradition of amateurism in college sports, by definition, shows that student athletes like all amateur athletes participate in their sports for reasons wholly unrelated to immediate compensation,” Judge Michael Stephen Kanne wrote in the majority opinion denying the Penn athletes’ claim. “Although we do not doubt that student athletes spend a tremendous amount of time playing for their respective schools, they do so and have done so for over a hundred years under the NCAA without any real expectation of earning an income.”

            That segment of the decision rests a bit on circular logic amateurism remains legal, in part, due to the very existence of amateurism and ignores one of the basic realities confronting college sports right now: Numerous athletes have challenged the persistence of amateurism and made it clear they expect better compensation, or at least a greater voice in how they are treated, financially or otherwise.

            Still, the judges’ interpretation follows the NCAA’s preferred legal argument as well as past rulings on amateurism, and appears at first glance to be yet another overwhelming victory for the current college sports model.

            The Penn case was tilted in favor of the school and the NCAA in multiple ways. The athletes in question, unlike most of those who have challenged the NCAA or their schools and conferences in court, were not on scholarship (the Ivy League does not grant athletic scholarships). And as track and field athletes, they did not participate in a “revenue sport” in other words, men’s basketball or football. 

            That weakened their argument from the beginning. However, for one of the case’s judges, it also pointed to a potential path forward for scholarship athletes in revenue sports, who are facing a different “economic reality” than those in the Penn suit.

            “Because the plaintiffs in this case did not receive academic scholarships and participated in a non-revenue sport … the logic of their claim would have included not only any college athlete in any sport and any NCAA division, but also college musicians, actors, journalists and debaters. That broad theory is mistaken,” 7th Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote in his concurring opinion

            “I am less confident, however,” Hamilton continued, “that our reasoning should extend to students who receive athletic scholarships to participate in so-called revenue sports like Division I men’s basketball and [Football Bowl Subdivision, the top level of U.S. college football]. In those sports, economic reality and the tradition of amateurism may not point in the same direction.”

            That economic reality, Hamilton noted, involves athletes who generate hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in revenue for their schools, while their scholarships only cover the cost of attendance.

            The nature of the relationship between kids who play FBS football and their schools, leagues and the NCAA … is a business relationship. Mark C. Rifkin, attorney for former USC football player Lamar Dawson

            Hamilton’s lack of confidence could be good news for one athlete who filed a similar lawsuit earlier this year. In September, former University of Southern California football player Lamar Dawson sued USC, the PAC-12 conference and the NCAA, alleging that he and his fellow football players were employees who were not properly compensated under federal wage and hour laws.

            The legal theory in Dawson’s case a class-action suit is the same as that in the Penn suit. The difference is that Dawson’s proposed class of athletes includes only those who were on scholarship and played revenue sports.

            That could be key, as Hamilton hinted in his opinion and as Mark C. Rifkin, one of Dawson’s attorneys, posited when Dawson’s case was filed.

            “I think there’s something special about players in the big-revenue, big-money sports like [major conference] football,” Rifkin told The Huffington Post in September. “It’s a totally different relationship between the conference and the player and the NCAA and the player.”

            Dawson’s case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, so Hamilton won’t get to participate in the “further debate” he said could be warranted in a case involving scholarship athletes in revenue sports. But Rifkin said he did “take some comfort” in Hamilton’s views.

            “I’m optimistic about Judge Hamilton’s concurring opinion, because it shows exactly what we’ve been saying all along,” Rifkin told HuffPost on Tuesday. “The nature of the relationship between kids who play FBS football and their schools, leagues and the NCAA which earn millions and millions of dollars from their labor that economic relationship is a business relationship.”

            Other cases have suggested there are looming changes in the NCAA’s business model. A March 2014 decision from the Chicago regional director of the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Northwestern University’s football players qualified as employees under labor law. (The full NLRB later punted on the Northwestern decision, ruling that the football players could not form a union as they’d hoped.) Former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon also won a partial victory in an antitrust case against the NCAA. 

            Hamilton’s opinion doesn’t mean Dawson or other athletes will be successful challenging the NCAA on wage and hour grounds, and courts have applied different tests and standards to determine if athletes should be treated as employees. But the opinion does point to the possibility that future cases could challenge the status quo. 

            “He’s really laid it out,” Tatos said, “that if these were revenue sport athletes that if this argument had been brought forth by, say, football players at USC, football players at Alabama, or basketball players at Kentucky it may be a different story.”

            Source article at =>

              Recommended Products

            • P1 Video Magnet Software Suite Enterprise P1 Video Magnet Software Suite is the most powerful, professional website building and traffic generation system on WordPress.
            • WP Forcefield The number of spammer, hacker and bot attacks is unrelenting - and WordPress sites, themes and plugins are the targets.WP Forcefield Scans your site for vulnerabilities, reports, fixes and optimizes: it's your 24/7 Judge Dredd investigator/enforcer.
            • WP Shields Up Single OTO (EWL) Stealth Plugin Stops Your WP Site Broadcasting Security Loopholes
            • Kick Ass Emails Kick Ass Emails Is The Most Comprehensive Program Designed To Be The Only Email Marketing System You Will Ever Need. Kick Ass Emails has joined forces with MailMinion to bring you the most complete email marketing package.

            WASHINGTON Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) delivered a parting message to Capitol Hill reporters on Tuesday during what was likely his last press conference before his retirement after five terms in the Senate.

            “I have abiding faith in the work that you do, and right now, your work is more important than ever,” Reid told reporters during his weekly press stakeout. “What happened in the election, there is great efforts to have fake news and to have tweets determine what happens with news of the day. You have an extremely difficult responsibility now, and it’s more important than ever.”

            The debate over so-called fake news has only increased after an election won by a candidate with a particular disregard for the truth. Even during the transition process, for example, President-elect Donald Trump has continued to make false claims that “millions” of ballots were illegally cast in California.

            Over the weekend, police in Washington D.C. detained an armed man at a local pizza shop who was incensed by an online conspiracy theory that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and campaign chairman John Podesta ran a child sex trafficking ring in the back of the restaurant. There is no evidence to support the theory, but it quickly spread through fake news sites and Reddit.

            Of course, Reid himself has also made some dubious claims. In 2012, he accused then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of not having paid any taxes in the last decade. The former Massachusetts governor later released his tax returns for 2010 and 2011, showing that he had indeed paid taxes for those years.

            During the press conference on Tuesday, Reid said that journalists had a responsibility to keep those in power honest in the coming months. 

            “I think taking tough questions from journalists is part of the job, and I wish you all the very best recognizing that your burden at this stage of America is extremely heavy,” he said. “I wish you the very best in doing what you can to help our great country.”

            Laura Barron-Lopez contributed reporting.

            Source article at =>

            WASHINGTON For 14 years, Carmelina Cadena has worked as an immigration court interpreter, serving as a bridge between judges, attorneys and immigrants who can’t explain in English why they came to the U.S. or fear being deported.

            Cadena has seen a change in the courts in the past year. She says standards have deteriorated, as has her compensation: She no longer gets reimbursed for many of the expenses she incurs traveling around the country for court hearings, and her total pay now is lower.

            But what Cadena is most worried about is the immigrants who will suffer or already are suffering when experienced immigration court interpreters are replaced with new hires who are willing to accept lower pay.

            The labor dispute is now spilling into the immigration courts, and its having an impact on the immigration judges, the attorneys like myself and, more importantly, … the individuals that are before the courts. Victor Nieblas, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association

            Some highly skilled interpreters are leaving immigration court work because of the compensation complaints. They’re being replaced with people with less experience who may make mistakes, interpreters say. Sometimes there are shortages that lead to no interpreter showing up or to courts making do with an interpreter who speaks the immigrant’s second or third language rather than the one best understood. In addition, immigration courts don’t require interpreters to have the same types of certification required by other state and federal courts, which, interpreters say, leads to jobs going to people who may not be prepared. 

            “This is somebody’s life that is relying on your ability to relay their story,” said Cadena, who is originally from Guatemala and speaks two Mayan dialects: Acateco and Canjobal. “If the [interpreter] doesn’t know what something means and they get stumped on it and they don’t say it, that could be the difference between that person having to go back to a country where they’re facing danger.”

            She is part of a group of immigration court interpreters pushing back on what they argue is unfair pay and lower standards from SOSi, the corporation that in 2015 received a contract to handle interpretation for immigration courts using independent contractors, such as Cadena.

            The interpreters’ fight is happening on multiple fronts this week. On Monday, a group of immigration court interpreters sued the government contractor in federal court, claiming they are not being paid for all of their work and expenses.

            Also Monday, a union leader and immigrant rights organizer wrote to the Department of Justice that immigrants’ due process is suffering because of poor labor practices and low standards for certification for interpreters.

            And Wednesday, immigration court interpreters will join a protest in Washington, D.C., over low wages for federal government contract workers.

            It’s a labor battle with high stakes for immigrants in court proceedings, many of whom need an interpreter to communicate with the judges who will decide their fate. The federal government often outsources the work in an effort to save money, but interpreters and attorneys say that outsourcing this service to SOSi has hurt both the workers and the people they’re trying to help.

            In their suit, interpreters allege that they are not compensated for all of the time they work and are not properly reimbursed for costs. They are required to arrive at court 30 minutes before a hearing and go through security screenings, for example, but that time doesn’t count toward their pay, nor does wait time between hearings or the time it takes to set up, according to the complaint.

            Terry Why via Getty Images
            “SOSi is committed to contracting with the top providers of interpretive services and serving the DOJ at a very high level,” responds a company spokeswoman.

            Labor problems hurt due process for immigrants, argued Bernard Lunzer, News Guild-CWA president, and Gustavo Torres, executive director of the immigrant advocacy group CASA de Maryland in their letter to the Department of Justice, which asked for an investigation into whether SOSi is meeting standards for quality in interpreting. (Although they are not unionized, many SOSi immigration court interpreters are part of the Interpreters Guild of America, which is affiliated with the News Guild-CWA.) 

            The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on the letter or the complaints about SOSi.

            An SOSi spokeswoman said in a statement that the company does not typically comment on litigation but that it “has successfully recruited many independent contractors who provide interpretive services in 300 languages and dialects” in support of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. She said the complaint was from “one former independent contractor” and that its allegations “are baseless and do not accurately represent the Company’s business.”

            “Founded more than 25 years ago as an interpretation agency, SOSi is committed to contracting with the top providers of interpretive services and serving the DOJ at a very high level,” said the spokeswoman, who asked not to be identified by name.

            But interpreters and organizers say the training standards seem to be weaker, not stronger, than those for other courts’ interpreters. Angie Birchfield of the Interpreters Guild of America, who does not work for SOSi, said court interpreters required to take one of the often-used certification exams often study for more than a year and usually don’t pass on the first try, given the difficulty of the job.

            “I have to be a judge, I have to be an attorney, I have to be a doctor, I have to be a layperson, I have to be a gang member, and I have to be an expert witness, and I have to have all of that vocabulary at the tip of my tongue in a different language,” Birchfield said of interpreting. “That in itself can tell you the hours upon hours upon hours of training that we have to go through in order to be as proficient as we need to be in order to be able to handle these kinds of cases.”

            Some of the newer immigration court interpreters don’t know all of the necessary language, said Victor Nieblas, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. For example, he said, he has had interpreters not know what an “LPR” means the common shorthand for “legal permanent resident.”

            He said he has noticed more problems in how the system operates since SOSi took over, along with what he’s heard from interpreters he talks to. 

            “The labor dispute is now spilling into the immigration courts, and it’s having an impact on the immigration judges, the attorneys like myself and, more importantly, … the individuals that are before the courts,” Nieblas said. “That shouldn’t be the case.”

            For her part, Cadena said she supports higher certification standards and has taken steps to get certification for the state. She said she works hard to keep her language skills up, including by traveling back to Guatemala and learning new language that’s always evolving, such as terms related to technology.

            The high level of skill required for the job should be reflected in its pay, she argued.

            “We are the foot soldiers that are going out there, we’re doing a lot of work and we’re not getting the respect that we deserve,” she said.

            Source article at =>

            (CNN)A commander in chief who prizes nuance and restraint put his legacy in the war on terror Tuesday in the hands of a brassy successor who embodies gut-check leadership.

            Forty-five days before the inauguration, Barack Obama and Donald Trump struck a contrast that not only reflected their chalk-and-cheese political styles, but their radically different doctrines for how best to keep America safe.
              Obama traveled to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida to bid a poignant farewell to his troops. He offered one of his characteristic, professorial examinations of his own motives, place in history and responses to the threat from terrorism that has evolved but hardly waned during his eight years in office.
              At almost the same time, the President-elect stood beaming in the cabin of his personal 757 alongside James Mattis, the retired general he will formally unveil later Tuesday in North Carolina as his pick for defense secretary and whom Trump delights in calling by his nickname, “Mad Dog.”
              More comfortable with an explosive tweet and a swipe at what he considers to be the Obama administration’s fecklessness on terrorism than public self-examination, Trump has promised to break Obama’s mold when he enters the White House.
              But the outgoing commander in chief made the case that his successor should adopt many of his approaches and issued a forceful, implicit appeal to Trump to keep the fight against terror in what he sees as its proper perspective.
              “The whole objective of these terrorists is to scare us into changing the nature of who we are and our democracy,” Obama told the troops, without mentioning Trump by name.
              “The fact is, people and nations do not make good decisions when they are driven by fear,” he said, in an apparent plea to Trump not to embrace tactics used by the George W. Bush administration that much of his own presidency was dedicated to overturning and outlawing.
              In his last major national security address, Obama argued that he had placed the US anti-terror campaign on more sustainable ground, morally, legally and militarily than it was on when he took office in January 2009.
              In defending his decision to ban interrogation methods critics label torture, his efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and his withdrawal from Middle East battlefields, the President appeared to be directly addressing his successor: “Right makes might, not the other way around.”
              Obama said he was indeed right to pull troops out of Iraq and to end combat in Afghanistan, to forge a nuclear deal with Iran and celebrated the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.
              Eying Republicans who blame him for the rise of ISIS, Obama touted the success of the US-backed offensive against the terror group in Iraq and Syria and argued he had mandated greater transparency on the way America uses drones.
              While he pointed out that there had been no attack on the scale of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks during his tenure, Obama acknowledged the new wave of radicalized homegrown terrorists inspired by ISIS like those in San Bernardino, California, or Orlando, Florida.



                JUST WATCHED

                Who is Michael Flynn?

              MUST WATCH

              Leaving power means that Obama has no idea — or control — over whether those who come after him will build on the foundation he believes he has left.
              Trump lashed Obama’s approach as “disastrous” on the campaign trail, and vowed to launch an all-encompassing struggle reminiscent of the generations-long duel between the West and Communism.
              He plans to crack down on Muslim immigration, to intensify the fight against ISIS and has threatened to bring back waterboarding — although there are signs he may have backed off that promise after meeting Mattis.
              Trump, without revealing his plans, has vowed to be far more aggressive in combating terror and has warned he will renegotiate Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
              On the face of it, Trump’s fixation with strength and his own ferocious rhetoric — as well as the appointment of vehement Obama critic, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, as his national security adviser — suggests an immediate change of course.
              And yet, the world often looks different from inside the Oval Office, and despite the clear temperamental and rhetorical gulf between the two men, it remains unclear how much of the Obama legacy Trump will tear down.
              It could turn out Trump will decide that the combination of drone strikes, the scalpel of special forces raids and using local forces to combat ISIS — policies Obama has pursued — are the most effective options.
              And new legal constraints introduced over the Obama years on interrogations of terror suspects combined with the political and military constraints imposed by years of grueling foreign wars might all combine to box Trump in.
              “There is no question that President Obama was determined to make the US counter-terrorism policy sustainable — not only in terms of the resources that we were putting into it but sustainable in terms of the legal basis in which we had been operating,” said Derek Chollet, who served as a senior official in the Obama Pentagon and White House.
              Chollet added that one reason Obama gave the speech Tuesday was to explain what he had done, to defend it and to show why going after terrorists in line with the rule of law was the preferable path.
              “There is a lot that Donald Trump personally, or those around him, have said that would very much go against what President Obama has been talking about,” he noted. “But like on every other policy issue, we are not going to really know what direction this is going to take until Donald Trump takes office.”

              Source article at =>

              (CNN)Let’s remember Pearl Harbor

              As we go to meet the foe
              Let’s remember Pearl Harbor
                As we did the Alamo
                We will always remember
                How they died for liberty.
                Let’s remember Pearl Harbor
                And go on to victory.
                — Lyrics of a song recorded by big-band leader Sammy Kaye
                I remember.
                It was 75 years ago. But I remember.
                It was a Sunday afternoon, my senior year in high school. My parents and I gathered around the radio, an old Philco with the arched top, listening to the stunning news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.


                I think my father was listening to the radio when the station broke in with the news. My mother was probably in the kitchen after Sunday dinner. I was in my room doing homework when they called to me. What I remember — clearly, vividly, testify-to-it-in-court — is the three of us huddled around the radio, trying to take it in. The bolt-from-the-blue event, comparable in our time only to 9/11, that would change life as we knew it.
                War was nothing new. But it was always somewhere else, somebody else.
                I’d listened to the radio when Poland was invaded. Paris occupied. Dunkirk evacuated. Edward R. Murrow reported from London, bombs falling in the distance. Now they’d fallen on US Navy ships in a place I’d never heard of.
                The next day at school we were all buzzing about it. Someone said, and everyone picked it up: “America has never lost a war.” When we walked into American history class after lunch, our teacher said, “Neither has Japan.”
                It was in that history class I heard President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s address to a joint session of the US Congress when our school P.A. system piped it into classrooms. The President was asking for a declaration of war, declaring the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, “a date which will live in infamy.”
                Several years later, on a visit to Washington, I went to the National Archives. Up the marble stairway, past the framed copies of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the walls of the second floor were covered with documents in narrow black frames. I stopped at the typed text of President Roosevelt’s speech to Congress that day. I noticed the text said “a date which will live in history.” History had been crossed out, a word penciled in above: infamy.
                According to a one-page, historical footnote by former Times Executive Editor Max Frankel in The New York Times Magazine years later, President Roosevelt had dictated the speech but then felt “history” did not cover the treachery, the heinous nature of the surprise attack.
                Infamy does better convey the deed, and toll.
                The Japanese attack destroyed or damaged 19 US Navy ships, including eight battleships. It killed 2,403 Americans and wounded 1,178. Civilians weren’t spared, either — 68 were killed.
                Not that any of these figures were released at the time — valuable intelligence for the enemy, impact on morale on the home front.
                Years later, I chanced upon a fact that is the one I remember today. The seemingly small detail that lingers. A comment by the legendary Chicago Daily News foreign correspondent Robert J. Casey, whom I had the pleasure of knowing when I was at the Daily News. Casey, who had been covering the war in Europe — the Fall of France, Battle of Britain and London Blitz — had turned his professional attention to the Pacific. When he arrived in Pearl Harbor shortly before Christmas (I think I read this in a Daily News Alumni newsletter), he said the smell of burning oil and rubber was still in the air.
                That Christmas, I was trying, as was everyone, to cope with the news of another loss — Wake Island, December 23. Then Manila.
                The only good news for months came with the Doolittle Raid, April 18, 1942. Sixteen B-25 bombers under the command of Lt. Col. James “Jimmy” Doolittle took off from the USS Hornet aircraft carrier to take the war to the Japanese, bombing Tokyo and military targets in Japan.
                One hooray! yahoo! hallelujah! moment in the long dark months.
                Bataan fell April 9. Corregidor May 6.
                In one of those twists of fate encountered in novels rather than our own lives, the morning of February 1, 1945, when I arrived for work at the Chicago Daily News — I was a copygirl then — I was told not to go to my usual post, but to a desk where I would receive the names of the men who had just been freed from a Japanese prisoner of war camp, the men taken prisoner when Bataan and Corregidor fell. The names were being released as they were obtained and needed to be put in alphabetical order. I cut The Associated Press copy into strips and put the names in order. All morning and well into the afternoon. On my way home that night, I read The Associated Press story on the men rescued, the first glimpse of the horrors of the Bataan Death March.
                When a copyboy dropped off copies of the latest edition at the city desk a few weeks later, I saw the picture of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima — page one, front and center. No missing it. News stories documented the bloody struggle. So bloody the US Marine deaths on Iwo Jima were one-third of all Marine deaths in World War II.
                One day I was told to go to the Daily News library — it was no longer called the morgue; that was an earlier time — to get the clips on Ernie Pyle, the beloved war correspondent killed by a machine-gun near Okinawa.
                The war was always there.
                Perhaps I remember so much because I’m part of “the greatest generation,” on the young side, granted, military service aside. Those who did serve are passing at a rate that has been the subject of a number of stories. Whether someone served on the front lines or kept the home fires burning, each passing reduces the number to remember, to talk about these things, write about them.
                Without that, the events, like the memories, fade with the years, as surely as the wallpaper that gets full afternoon sun.
                The song “Let’s remember Pearl Harbor” was played so often I could — fudging just a few of the lyrics — sing it for you today.
                I only had to Google precise dates and the number and type of planes in the Doolittle Raid for this story.

                Join us on Twitter and Facebook

                I’m not a military historian. I don’t bury myself in libraries, doing research on battles — air, land, or sea. But I’ve been interested in what goes on in the world since I can remember, enhanced and polished by years in the newspaper business or its environs. And, perhaps, the impact — on my world, our world — of that long ago Sunday.
                December 7, 1941.
                The date which will live in infamy.
                The Sunday morning Japanese bombs rained down on US battleships and cruisers and destroyers. Torpedoes sped toward them. Machine-gun fire raked the decks.
                The USS Arizona may be a beautiful memorial today. But 1,102 of the 1,177 sailors and Marines killed on the USS Arizona that Sunday are entombed below its decks. And, each day, up to nine quarts of oil rise to the surface from the submerged wreckage. It is sometimes referred to as the “tears of the Arizona,” or “black tears.”

                Source article at =>

                (CNN)The chance a child will get shot at school is significantly lower if their state has mandatory background checks, according to a study released Wednesday in the journal Injury Prevention. Children also have better odds if their states spend more on mental health and education.

                The vast majority of Americans consistently say they want more background checks when polled, but no federal law mandates them, and state laws vary.


                  “School shootings are becoming less rare, and that is a big concern,” said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who was not involved in the study. He found it interesting but would add that, based on previous research, the No. 1 factor in shootings is gun ownership.
                  “When you have a larger number of guns, you see a larger number of shootings,” Webster said.
                  New York, for instance, which has a number of restrictive ownership laws, didn’t have a single school shooting in the time studied. The state also has comprehensive approval system in which people can be denied a gun if the approving authority spots a red flag, even if they pass the background check. With that in mind, what one factor matters most “may be hard to tease out,” he said.
                  Shootings at schools do have devastating consequences, not only for the person who has been shot.

                  See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

                  Research has showed that shootings can dramatically lower area students’ test scores (PDF) and can cause students long-term psychological problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, even for those who have not witnessed the event.
                  “Apathy can sometimes set in when there are so many incidents, but one shooting is too many,” Kalesan said. “Hopefully, this research can help us work toward a better solution than what we have now.”

                  Source article at =>