BOSTON (CBS) – New concerns arise about the mental health of students on college campuses all across the country.
Dr. Gene Beresin, a psychiatrist and Executive Director of The Clay Center for Young Healthy Minds at Massachusetts General Hospital, says 50% to 60% of college students have a psychiatric disorder.
“What I’m including in that is the use of substances, anxiety, depression, problems with relationships, break-ups, academic problems, learning disabilities, attentional problems,” says Dr. Beresin. “If you add them all up 50% doesn’t seem that high.”
The jury is out on whether Bernie Sanders could organize a successful Vermont ski weekend in February. But folks who wonder whether a guy who has never run anything could have been a successful President (NO, we aren't Obama-bashing here!) swill laugh at this:
Bernie Sanders’s New Political Group Is Met by Staff Revolt
By ALAN RAPPEPORT and YAMICHE ALCINDOR
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, his presidential campaign behind him, was looking to advance the movement he built during the Democratic primary race, with the public unveiling on Wednesday of a political organization focused on addressing economic inequality and taking on special interests.
But while the establishment of the new group, Our Revolution, has been eagerly awaited by many of his most ardent supporters, it has been met with criticism and controversy over its financing and management.
A principal concern among backers of Mr. Sanders, whose condemnation of the campaign finance system was a pillar of his presidential bid, is that the group can draw from the same pool of “dark money” that Mr. Sanders condemned for lacking transparency.
The announcement of the group, which was to be live streamed on Wednesday night, also came as a majority of its staff resigned after the appointment last Monday of Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s former campaign manager, to lead the organization.
Bringing people together! Not his supporters, sadly, but still...
After the resignations, Mr. Sanders spoke to some who had quit and asked them to reconsider, but the staff members refused.
Interesting to know they supported the message and not the man.
At the heart of the issue, according to several people who left, was deep distrust of and frustration with Mr. Weaver, whom they accused of wasting money on television advertising during Mr. Sanders’s campaign; mismanaging campaign funds by failing to hire staff members or effectively target voters; and creating a hostile work environment by threatening to criticize staff members if they quit.
Claire Sandberg, who was the organizing director at Our Revolution and had worked on Mr. Sanders’s campaign, said she and others were also concerned about the group’s tax status — as a 501(c)(4) organization it can collect large donations from anonymous sources — and that a focus by Mr. Weaver on television advertising meant that it would fail to reach many of the young voters who powered Mr. Sanders’s campaign and are best reached online.
“I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign,” she said, expressing concern that Mr. Weaver would “betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grass-roots-funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement.”
They are not alone in their concerns:
Republicans in Mr. Sanders’s home state have taken notice of his postcampaign behavior and his new political organization and accused him of violating his own principles.
“He preaches transparency and then he tries to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support his causes,” said Brady Toensing, the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, who argued that Mr. Sanders was essentially a big donor. “What I’m seeing here is a senator who is against big money in politics, but only when it’s not his big money,” he said.
Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance expert at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit political finance group, said that it was unusual for a federal lawmaker to set up such a fund-raising organization and that Mr. Sanders should have to follow the donation limits and disclosure requirements to be in compliance with the Federal Election Commission.
“There are definitely some red flags with respect to the formation of this group that are worth noting and keeping an eye on,” Mr. Ryan said. “We’re in a murky area.”
In Florida Keys, Some Worry About ‘Science and Government’ More Than Zika
By Lizette Alzarez Aug 23, 2016
KEY HAVEN, Fla. — To live here, along this chain of tiny islands, a place vulnerable to hurricanes and steeped in the lore of piracy and smuggling, requires a blend of carefree eccentricity and go-it-alone grit.
So when, several years ago, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District offered up the peninsula of Key Haven, a tiny suburb of Key West, for the first United States test of genetically modified mosquitoes built to blunt the spread of dengue and Zika, it was only a matter of time before opposition mounted.
Today, even as federal officials have told pregnant women to stay away from parts of Miami-Dade County because of the Zika virus, Key Haven’s hardened position against the trial — or the experiment, as they call it — is hard to miss amid the bougainvillea and hibiscus flowering on lawns here. “No Consent to Release of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes,” red-and-white placards declare.
“People here can survive what nature throws at them,” said Gilda Niles, 64, who arrived in Key West from Cuba in 1967 and moved to Key Haven in 1980, when it was just a plot of earth with cheaper land, water on three sides and more space. “Hurricanes, bring them on; long-timers here seldom evacuate. Mosquitoes, well, that’s the price of paradise. Zika, this too shall pass, like dengue. But science and government, I’m not so sure about.”
Oh, please - Ms. Niles is 64 and won't need to worry about having any tiny-headed tots herself. Of course, when her offspring of child-bearing age stop visiting her, her mind may change.
We get an alternative view:
Phil Goodman, the chairman of the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District Board of Commissioners, said he opposed the referendum because the board was elected to make these kinds of hard choices “from a position of knowledge, and not emotion.”
“The opponents have very little information, and they are led by a few people who are non-science-based,” Mr. Goodman said. “We have tried to explain the real answers to them. They are not interested in the truth.”
Mr. Goodman said scientists and regulators — including the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — had concluded that there is no evidence that the mosquitoes are harmful to people, animals or the environment. For this reason, the F.D.A. granted final approval to the trial this month.
Hillary Clinton’s 15,000 New Emails to Get Timetable for Release
By Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers Aug 22, 2016
Well, they have toned down the gloomier front page headline, which reads:
"New Clinton Emails Raise Shadow Over Her Campaign"
Let the sun shine!
There is also a bit of bad-news management in their opening (4th paragraph):
WASHINGTON — The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F.B.I. collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. In late July, it turned them over to the State Department, which now must set a timetable for their release, according to Judge Boasberg’s order.
While the emails were not in the original trove of 55,000 pages that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers handed to the State Department last year, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said in July that he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted.” Still, he characterized Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information during her years at the State Department as “extremely careless.”
As to the "intentionally deleted" question, it is clear, if we can believe anything at all that Hillary has said, that her team deleted thousands of emails. We were assured that the deleted emails related to wedding plans and yoga schedules, but that was debunked by James Comey of the FBI when he announced that the FBI had recovered thousands of work-related emails.
And his take about intentional deletion was quite different from the Times presentation today:
The F.B.I. discovered “several thousand” work-related emails that were not in the original trove of 30,000 turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department. Three of those contained information that agencies have concluded was classified, though Mr. Comey said he did not believe Mrs. Clinton deliberately deleted or withheld them from investigators.
The FBI was not investigating violations of the Freedom of Information Act or the National Archives Act, both of which relate to record-keeping and neither of which have criminal penalties. His comment about intentional deletion related to the intentional, or inadvertent, deletion of evidence of mishandling of classified information. In that context, his meaning is clear - Hillary may or may not have lied about circumventing the FOIA and the National Archives Act (OK, she lied) but per Comey she did not deliberately conceal evidence relevant to the FBI investigation.
So I suppose the next Hillary spin will be that these newly discovered work-related emails were just deleted in the normal course of this and that. When they are released, and the push is on to get them out before the election, we may see for ourselves just what sort of "work-related" stuff the FBI found, and whether it overlaps with the pay-to-play connection between State Department access and Clinton Foundation donations.
Will these revelations change any minds? A majority of the US public already considers Hillary untrustworthy.
If Hillary Clinton Wins, Foundation Will Stop Accepting Foreign Donations
By Amy Chozick Aug 18 2016
Facing criticism for some of the donations given to his family’s philanthropy, Bill Clinton said on Thursday that the Clinton Foundation would no longer accept foreign or corporate money and that he would resign from its board should Hillary Clinton win the presidency.
Mr. Clinton’s announcement, which he relayed to foundation employees in a meeting on Thursday, followed the recent release of State Department emails mentioning donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation who had contact with aides to Mrs. Clinton while she was the secretary of state.
The donations have become a lighting rod in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign against Donald J. Trump, who has repeatedly implied that foreign donors had corrupted his opponent’s tenure as secretary of state. On Tuesday, the Trump campaign pointed to an editorial in The Boston Globe titled “Clinton Foundation Should Stop Accepting Funds.”
So what is this, the "Full Employment for Influence Peddlers and Money Launderers" pledge of 2016? We can color even the Times skeptical:
Mr. Clinton’s decisions were first reported Thursday by The Associated Press and were confirmed by Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman. The charity will rely only on contributions from American citizens and charities should Mrs. Clinton become president, Mr. Clinton explained.
But the new provision will not necessarily ease concerns about how the foundation and its supporters would be dealt with by a Hillary Clinton Administration.
Ms. Chozick goes on to explain that plenty of American citizens had business before the State Department and will have it it before the Clinton Administration.
And in any case, will this pledge from Mr. Credible prevent foreigners from hiring Bill or other Friends of Hillary for lucrative speeches or "consulting" gigs? Will it prevent a foreigner from using a US based charity as a middleman for a wheel-greasing donation?
And will side deals even be disclosed? I know, right? Back in the days of the controversial uranium sale to the Russkies, Hillary accidentally forgot to keep the White House apprised of her donor list, despite her promise to do so. Ooops.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
But Bill has promised to keep his hand, and Hillary's, and Chelsea's out of the cookie jar, so we can all relax.
The deputy spokesman for the secretary general, Farhan Haq, said in an email this week that “over the past year, the U.N. has become convinced that it needs to do much more regarding its own involvement in the initial outbreak and the suffering of those affected by cholera.” He added that a “new response will be presented publicly within the next two months, once it has been fully elaborated, agreed with the Haitian authorities and discussed with member states.”
The weaseling is not necesarily over:
The secretary general’s acknowledgment, by contrast, stopped short of saying that the United Nations specifically caused the epidemic. Nor does it indicate a change in the organization’s legal position that it is absolutely immune from legal actions, including a federal lawsuit brought in the United States on behalf of cholera victims seeking billions in damages stemming from the Haiti crisis.
But it represents a significant shift after more than five years of high-level denial of any involvement or responsibility of the United Nations in the outbreak, which has killed at least 10,000 people and sickened hundreds of thousands. Cholera victims suffer from dehydration caused by severe diarrhea or vomiting.
10,000 dead and cholera continues in Haiti today. As to the outbreak:
The first victims lived near a base housing 454 United Nations peacekeepers freshly arrived from Nepal, where a cholera outbreak was underway, and waste from the base often leaked into the river. Numerous scientists have since argued that the base was the only plausible source of the outbreak — whose real death toll, one study found, could be much higher than the official numbers state — but United Nations officials have consistently insisted that its origins remain up for debate.
Mr. Alston [a New York University law professor who serves as one of a few dozen experts, known as special rapporteurs, who advise the organization on human rights issues] wrote that the United Nations’ Haiti cholera policy “is morally unconscionable, legally indefensible and politically self-defeating.” He added, “It is also entirely unnecessary.” The organization’s continuing denial and refusal to make reparations to the victims, he argued, “upholds a double standard according to which the U.N. insists that member states respect human rights, while rejecting any such responsibility for itself.”
Considering the early confusion about the Lochte story - Lochte apparently told his mother but not the US Olympic reps or the police, and mom told reporters - one does wonder whether the "we wuz robbed!" story was just a cover for something else.
But a cover-up for what, and why the desire to invent a story? Lochte and his teammates are adults who were done with their Olympic competition, so they shouldn't have been subject to any training rules.
The obvious guess is that they were off looking for illicit entertainment or controlled substances, which would still be a "So what?" unless Lochte's mom asked for a few hundred bucks for a shopping spree and her devoted son had to explain why he had no cash. But still, why let a little white lie escalate like that?
PILING ON: OK, now there is a report that Brazilian police are looking at a new video:
Video shows U.S. swimmer breaking gas station door, fighting guard, per authorities
Which leads to new questions - why say anything that calls attention to their night out if this is true?
And why did they display the calm and relaxed demeanor on the tape showing them re-entering the Olympic Village? That behavior struck a Brazilian judge as inconsistent with a recent robbery, but isn't it also inconsistent with a recent brawl? Of course, they seem in that tape to have wallets and cellphones, which does leave one wondering what the robber or robbers were after.
Well. These Olympians are more accustomed to handling adrenaline surges than I am.
The official says the guard was armed with a pistol, but he never took it out or pointed it at the swimmers.
According to the official, the gas station manager then arrived. Using a customer to translate, the manager asked the swimmers to pay for the broken door. After a discussion, they did pay him an unknown amount of money and then left.
The official says that swimmers Conger and Bentz, who were pulled off a plane going back to the United States late Wednesday, told police that the robbery story had been fabricated.
On the one hand, this sounds like a plausible drunken escapade. But to tell the police a different story later?!?
I want people to think Trump 'has no organization'
Oh, let's be fair:
Donald Trump's campaign shakeup means nothing more than an expansion, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday, praising the Republican nominee's organization and recent on-message speeches.
"More people. The campaign is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. A lot of people think he has no organization. Good. I like them to think that," Giuliani said during an interview on "Fox & Friends." "The reality is I've traveled to a number of states with Donald and I've seen the organization he has."
The Times opens what looks like a large, six-part elegy for Obama (Metaphor! Please don't anyone shoot the SOB!) with this:
Once Skeptical of Executive Power, Obama Has Come to Embrace It
Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history.
They've noticed! And I assume they are all-in, since it is an evil, hate-filled bunch of Republican bigots blocking this good and sincere man. (OK, I ought to read the piece, but then, I ought to floss regularly and how is that working? (Or should I?)
Anyway, on to the irony utterly lost on Timesman. They are pushing hard for Hillary, who with her private email server has demonstrated a distinct aversion to the Freedom of Information Act, the National Archives Act, and Congressional oversight. She has now had one press conference in the last seven months, and has a well-earned reputation for obfuscation and opacity. As to her disclosure of donors to the Clinton Foundation and their possible conflicts with business before the State Department, don't ask - this legacy article was published by the Times back when Warren and Biden were still in play, but don't look for this sort of coverage between now and November.
And this woman with this record will be succeeding a lauded Democrat who has made it a point to bypass Congress at every opportunity. Sometimes the courts thwart him, but Hillary will have a chance to appoint a fifth liberal Justice and create an open legal and regulatory playground for progressives.
Yet the Times is worried about Trump as a threat to the Constitution? Their list of concerns needs to be lenghtened.
Cost, Not Choice, Is Top Concern of Health Insurance Customers
By Reed Abelson Aug 13 2016
It is all about the price.
Millions of people buying insurance in the marketplaces created by the federal health care law have one feature in mind. It is not finding a favorite doctor, or even a trusted company. It is how much — or, more precisely, how little — they can pay in premiums each month.
And for many of them, especially those who are healthy, all the prices are too high.
The unexpected laser focus on price has contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses among the country’s top insurers, as fewer healthy people than expected have signed up. And that has created two vexing questions: Will the major insurance companies stay in the marketplaces? And if they do, will the public have a wide array of plans to choose from — a central tenet of the 2010 Affordable Care Act?
“The marketplace has been and continues to be unsustainable,” said Joseph R. Swedish, chief executive of Anthem, one of the nation’s largest insurers.
If forced to buy something they don't want (at prevailing prices) people will buy as little as possible. Surprise!
This is a story unlike any we have previously published. It is much longer than the typical New York Times Magazine feature story; in print, it occupies an entire issue. The product of some 18 months of reporting, it tells the story of the catastrophe that has fractured the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq 13 years ago, leading to the rise of ISIS and the global refugee crisis. The geography of this catastrophe is broad and its causes are many, but its consequences — war and uncertainty throughout the world — are familiar to us all. Scott Anderson’s story gives the reader a visceral sense of how it all unfolded, through the eyes of six characters in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan. Accompanying Anderson’s text are 10 portfolios by the photographer Paolo Pellegrin, drawn from his extensive travels across the region over the last 14 years, as well as a landmark virtual-reality experience that embeds the viewer with the Iraqi fighting forces during the battle to retake Falluja.
It is unprecedented for us to focus so much energy and attention on a single story, and to ask our readers to do the same. We would not do so were we not convinced that what follows is one of the most clear-eyed, powerful and human explanations of what has gone wrong in this region that you will ever read.
So this story is a BFD and the result of a major editorial effort. And here we go, first paragraph - I exhort the gun enthusiasts to strap themselves in and swallow any coffee. Or if you're hitting the hard stuff, that too:
Before driving into northern Iraq, Dr. Azar Mirkhan changed from his Western clothes into the traditional dress of a Kurdish pesh merga warrior: a tightfitting short woolen jacket over his shirt, baggy pantaloons and a wide cummerbund. He also thought to bring along certain accessories. These included a combat knife, tucked neatly into the waist of his cummerbund, as well as sniper binoculars and a loaded .45 semiautomatic. Should matters turn particularly ticklish, an M-4 assault rifle lay within easy reach on the back seat, with extra clips in the foot well. The doctor shrugged. “It’s a bad neighborhood.”
OK, it is a silly thing to get hung up on and it is entirely likely that George W. Bush or Condi Rice, who surely are familiar with the Middle East but don't seem to be ex-military or gun-oriented, might make the magazine/clip mistake (Readers with a long memory will recall my very own Getting Up To Standard moment on that point).
But at some point, one does wonder. Does anyone think that if a NY Times food critic submitted a review lauding a SoHo restaurant on West 8th St that the editors would not find their red pens?
Why can't they take the trouble to learn about topics they routinely write about? Why ask why?
And since most of the editors are determined to learn nothing about icky, scary guns, why can't they let Capt. C.J. Chivers (ret.) glance at these pieces for a reality check?