Tag Archives: top stories

Hooked on Speed: How Jazmine Fenlator Feeds Her "Bobsled Habit"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A “controlled car crash.” That’s how US bobsled pilot Jazmine Fenlator, 29, remembers her first run. “I was sliding down a mile of ice with my head buried in the bottom of the bobsled,” she says. “I’m getting jostled around and I’m not understanding why I’m moving so much.” She ended the run drooling and shaking, but she was hooked.

Bobsledders, many of whom, like Fenlator, hail from track-and-field sports, have to be some level of crazy to send their bodies careening down steep ice passages at speeds up to 100 miles per hour. But it’s not just the risk of bodily harm that makes the experience intense. “It’s a grueling blue-collar sport,” Fenlator says. “We carry our sleds. There’s no caddy, there’s no pit crew.” And, like many Olympians in less-prominent sports, the athletes often have to dip into their own coffers to pay for their training. At one point, Fenlator and her teammate had to scrounge up $20,000 for a new sled—which meant a slew of side jobs.

Their dedication paid off in early December, when Fenlator joined five teammates on the podium for a World Cup sweep—the first ever for US women’s bobsledding, and a hopeful indicator of what may lie ahead for Team USA in Sochi.

Mother Jones: What kind of reactions do you get when you tell people what you do?

Jazmine Fenlator: A lot of people think I’m on the Jamaican bobsled team. It’s a question every black bobsledder gets, even if you’re wearing a USA shirt. Or a lot of times people don’t know what bobsled is, so they’ll reference luge or skeleton. It’s a hard sport because not many people can relate to it, and it’s a hard sport to spectate. You only see it every four years on TV, and it doesn’t have a lot of popularity, which we’re trying to change. So, you get a lot of naïve questions. But I welcome those. The more people I can teach and tell about bobsled, the more cheers we’ll have in Sochi.

MJ: How does one become a bobsledder?

JF: I was a senior in college in 2006-2007 at Roger University as a track and field athlete. I started to realize that I was a little bit behind the pace I needed to qualify for Beijing. I was really going to focus on revamping my training when my coach mentioned bobsled. I didn’t really take him too seriously, but he submitted my athletic resume and the team invited me to a tryout camp. I jumped on the opportunity. It’s not everyday a national team invites you, especially if you’ve never done the sport before.

MJ: Had you ever even imagined bobsledding?

JF: No. I’d seen Cool Runnings and watching the 2002 and 2006 winter games, but I did not actually know much about it.

MJ: What do you remember from the 2002 games, the inaugural year for women’s bobsled?

JF: For Team USA to bring home gold, as well as Vonetta Flowers winning the first medal in winter sports for an African-American, was huge. I remember watching her and Jill Bakken push that sled down the start ramp on the final run and the announcer saying, “This is where Olympians are made, this is where medalists can break or make it.” They kept their composure and they did just what they needed to do and came across the line screaming.

MJ: What was bobsledding like the first time you did it?

JF: I had no idea what is happening. I was a brakeman, so you don’t get to see where you are going. My helmet doesn’t even fit properly, I am getting jostled around in this sled. A lot can happen in your brain in a minute, I’ve learned.

One of the coaches stood at the bottom to make sure that the newbies weren’t getting motion sickness or about to run and call a taxi and head to the airport. I’m breathing heavy and have drool and snot probably everywhere. I can’t unbuckle my helmet. I’m shaking, and I feel like “Aaah, I don’t really know. How many times do we do this today?” He’s like, “Great, ’cause we have a couple more training trips to go! Head right on the truck and go back up.” It was a pretty incredible experience. Extremely humbling.

MJ: How do you shave seconds off your time?

JF: You’re searching for thousands of seconds that add up to equal hundredths. I’ve gotten third in a race by six-hundredths. You can’t even blink that fast. And you can be like, where did I lose that time? Was it a piece of tape flapping on the side that I forgot to take off when cleaning my sled? Was it this little mistake here or there? You can’t just be a great athlete. You can’t just be a great pilot. You can’t just have great equipment. You’re looking for a combination, because it’s not just one thing. That’s why you’re in the weight room, and sprinting every day—to shave off hundredths in your 30-meter time, and lift 5 or 10 more pounds in the squat. Because all of that adds up.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading: 

Hooked on Speed: How Jazmine Fenlator Feeds Her "Bobsled Habit"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hooked on Speed: How Jazmine Fenlator Feeds Her "Bobsled Habit"

Believing You’re God Doesn’t Make You Too Crazy to Be Executed

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that mentally ill convicts can be executed so long as they have a “rational understanding” of their sentence and the reason for it. But state authorities have interpreted that language very broadly: Take John Ferguson, a paranoid schizophrenic who killed eight people after being released from a Florida mental hospital in 1976. He believed he’d been condemned to “prevent him from ascending to his rightful throne as the Prince of God”—a perch from which he would save the United States from communism. This past May, a federal appeals court declined to commute his sentence, with one judge writing that Ferguson’s belief in an afterlife didn’t make him insane: “If it did mean that, most Americans would be mentally incompetent to be executed.” The Supreme Court passed on reviewing the case, and Ferguson was executed in August. His last words: “I am the Prince of God and I will rise again.”

Other death-row inmates with delusions of divinity:

Michael Owen Perry
Perry, who murdered five family members, believed that he was a god and that Grease star Olivia Newton-John was a goddess. In 1985, he was sentenced to death in Louisiana before another court ruled that the state could not forcibly medicate him simply to make him rational enough for execution. Perry is still on death row.

Emanuel Kemp Jr.
Sentenced to be executed in Texas in 1999, Kemp believed he was God, and therefore above punishment for a 1987 murder. He was later found to be incompetent.

Thomas Harrison Provenzano
Provenzano‘s lawyers argued that their client, who believed he was Jesus Christ, had schizophrenia, prompting a Florida legislator to quip, “Just crucify him.” He was executed in 2000.

Larry Robison
Robison was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic three years before he murdered his roommate and four neighbors in an attempt to “find God.” He believed he had received biblical prophecies through a clock in his home. Texas executed him in 2000.

Scott Louis Panetti
Panetti believes his sentence for murdering his wife’s parents is part of a satanic plot to keep him from his divine mission to spread the word of God. He represented himself in court dressed as a cowboy and tried to subpoena Jesus. The Supreme Court ruled him incompetent in 2007—over the protests of then-Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz.

Percy Levar Walton
Walton, who murdered three people in Virginia in 1996, believed he was Jesus—as well as Superman, a queen bee, “the King of Hearts,” and a caveman. His sentence was commuted to life without parole in 2008.

Read this article: 

Believing You’re God Doesn’t Make You Too Crazy to Be Executed

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Believing You’re God Doesn’t Make You Too Crazy to Be Executed

The 9 Most Important Recommendations From the President’s NSA Surveillance Panel

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The report of the president’s NSA review panel is out. It has a grand total of 46 recommendations. Here are the most interesting ones:

  1. Phone records should be stored privately, not by the government. If the NSA needs phone records, it should get a warrant for them. Like a subpoena, the warrant should be “reasonable in focus, scope, and breadth.”
  2. More broadly: “As a general rule and without senior policy review, the government should not be permitted to collect and store mass, undigested, non-public personal information about US persons for the purpose of enabling future queries and data-mining for foreign intelligence purposes.”
  3. The FBI should no longer be allowed to issue National Security Records on its own. NSLs should be issued only if a warrant is approved. Nondisclosure orders should be more restricted; should last no more than 180 days; and should not prevent the target of the NSL from challenging its legality in court.
  4. Generally speaking, companies that are ordered to produce information should be allowed to “disclose on a periodic basis general information about the number of such orders they have received, the number they have complied with, the general categories of information they have produced, and the number of users whose information they have produced in each category.”
  5. Surveillance of non-US persons “must be directed exclusively at protecting national security interests….and must not be directed at illicit or illegitimate ends, such as the theft of trade secrets or obtaining commercial gain for domestic industries.”
  6. If a US person is inadvertently surveilled, that information cannot be used as evidence in any court proceeding.
  7. The NSA should be headed by a civilian. Leadership of the NSA should be separated from leadership of the military’s Cyber Command.
  8. “Congress should create the position of Public Interest Advocate to represent the interests of privacy and civil liberties before the FISC.” In addition, more FISC decisions should be declassified.
  9. The government should commit itself to stop trying to undermine public encryption standards.

These are useful recommendations, especially 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8. Recommendation 7 is already a dead letter, since President Obama has said he plans to keep dual-hatted leadership for the NSA and Cyber Command.

How much of this will survive the president and Congress? I’d like to say I’m optimistic, but I’m not, really. These recommendations are useful but modest, and I suspect that Congress will whittle them down even more. Stay tuned.

Source:

The 9 Most Important Recommendations From the President’s NSA Surveillance Panel

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 9 Most Important Recommendations From the President’s NSA Surveillance Panel

David O. Russell: Political Corruption in "American Hustle" Is Nothing Compared to Citizens United

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Tuesday, the famously mercurial writer/director David O. Russell was in Washington, DC, for a special screening and Q&A session for his critically acclaimed, award-winning new film American Hustle. MSNBC host Chris Matthews moderated the Q&A, and Chris Dodd (the former Democratic senator and current chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, the de facto censorship board for cinema in the United States) introduced Russell.

American Hustle—starring Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, and Jennifer Lawrence—is loosely based on events surrounding Abscam, a sting operation the FBI launched in the late ’70s to target trafficking in stolen property. The bureau recruited con artist Melvin Weinberg to help craft and execute the operation, which involved setting up Abdul Enterprises, a fake company funded by fictitious Arab sheiks who offered to bribe people to pave the way for a new casino in Atlantic City. The operation morphed into an investigation of political corruption when politicians started approaching Abdul Enterprises for money. By the early ’80s, Abscam had led to the conviction of one senator and six congressmen, among other political figures and officials. (The late Democratic congressman and Vietnam War vet John Murtha was also embroiled in the scandal, but escaped indictment and prosecution.)

Continue Reading »

Taken from:

David O. Russell: Political Corruption in "American Hustle" Is Nothing Compared to Citizens United

Posted in Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on David O. Russell: Political Corruption in "American Hustle" Is Nothing Compared to Citizens United

No, the Budget Deal Isn’t a "Compromise"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) were noticeably pleased with themselves when they announced their new budget deal at a press conference Tuesday evening. The 15-minute session was filled with compliments and bipartisan kumbayas for reaching such a sensible accord. “From the the outset,” Ryan said, “we knew that if we forced each other to compromise a core principle we would get nowhere. That is why we decided to focus on where the common ground is.” Murray backed that up, stressing that the two found success because they ditched ideological rigidity in favor of accommodation. “We have broken through the partisanship and the gridlock,” Murray said, “and reached a bipartisan budget compromise that will prevent a government shutdown in January.”

Compromise, compromise, compromise. It was the word of the day. Even President Barack Obama joined in on the hosannas. “This agreement doesn’t include everything I’d like—and I know many Republicans feel the same way,” he said in a statement shortly after the deal was announced. “That’s the nature of compromise.”

Who doesn’t like an agreement where each side gives a little to get something in return? That’s the basic concept of negotiation that we all learn in kindergarten. The only trouble is our political class has a distorted sense of what constitutes a “compromise.” The Washington Compromise lacks any relation to the actual policies being discussed. It’s just a grade-school level formula you can plug into any scenario. Find the midpoint between two competing plans and you’ve found the centrist goal. The trouble is, not every starting point is created equally.

It’s a simplistic vision of politics, akin to the critics who think all political disagreements can be boiled down to winners and losers, or the persistent Green Lantern notion of presidential power that Obama could accomplish anything if he would just lead already.

Continue Reading »

Original article: 

No, the Budget Deal Isn’t a "Compromise"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, the Budget Deal Isn’t a "Compromise"

The War Over Austerity Is Over. Republicans Won.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The main thing you need to know about today’s budget agreement is that it’s very modest. It repeals a little bit of the sequester cuts, and pays for it with a few small cuts in entitlements and some even smaller increases in user fees. Overall, the numbers are tiny enough that it’s hard to see how anyone can get either too excited or too outraged over it.

Needless to say, this hasn’t stopped the usual suspects (Heritage, Club for Growth, various tea party groups) from acting as though it represents the end of Western civilization. But they’ve overplayed their hands this time, and GOP leaders in the House have apparently had enough of these clowns. Both John Boehner and Eric Cantor essentially told them to piss off, and I suspect that this agreement is going to get a lot of Republican votes. I’ll predict at least 150 Republican votes in the House, maybe more. The tea party rump is truly going to be a rump this time.

That said, it was interesting reading the reaction of conservative wonk-star Yuval Levin to the deal:

This deal would amount to the Democrats accepting the implications of their misjudgment in abiding the Budget Control Act in 2011….It doesn’t much change the terms reached in the original Budget Control Act and sequester deal, and essentially cements the Democrats’ loss and miscalculation in that deal.

The Democrats’ hope, given that they control both the White House and the Senate, was to replace the sequester with some combination of tax increases and more palatable spending cuts….That the Democrats would accept a deal like this is a pretty striking indication of how the Republican House has changed the conversation on the spending front since 2010. Think of it this way: In their first budget after re-taking the majority—the FY 2012 Ryan budget, passed in 2011—the House Republicans wanted discretionary spending to be $1.039 trillion in 2014 and $1.047 trillion in 2015. These budgets were of course described by the Democrats and the political press (but I repeat myself) as some reversion to humanity’s barbaric past. Yet this proposed deal with the Democrats would put discretionary spending at $1.012 trillion in 2014 and $1.014 trillion in 2015—in both cases below that first House Republican budget.

To some extent, Levin is probably overstating his case in order to nudge conservatives on board a deal he thinks is palatable—and away from yet another round of government shutdowns, which he correctly views as disastrous for Republicans. Still, he’s basically right: Democrats originally believed the sequester would never happen. Either the supercommittee would replace it, or else Republicans would eventually cave in because they couldn’t tolerate the defense cuts. But that turned out not to be true. They aren’t happy with the defense cuts, but in the end, to the surprise of Democrats, they’ve decided they can live with them.

The ultimate result, as Levin says correctly, is a budget that’s below even the pipe-dream Ryan budget of 2011. I’d make a bit less of this than Levin, since Ryan’s budgets have always backloaded their cuts, but it’s still pretty remarkable. Two years ago, Ryan’s budget was basically at the outer limit of mainstream conservative wish lists. Today it looks tame.

Quibbles aside, Levin is right: Republicans have massively changed the spending conversation since 2010. Austerity has won.

Originally posted here: 

The War Over Austerity Is Over. Republicans Won.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The War Over Austerity Is Over. Republicans Won.

Here’s the Story Behind the Big Wall Street Reform Rule That Was Just Approved

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Tuesday, banking regulators finalized one of the most important provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. It’s called the Volcker rule, and it’s supposed to prohibit the high-risk trading by commercial banks that helped cause the financial crisis. Here’s what you need to know about it.

What’s the reason for the new rule? In the run-up to the financial crisis, big banks invested in low-quality mortgage-backed securities. When those over-leveraged bets turned sour, the economy collapsed, and the government had to bail out big financial institutions. The Volcker rule ensures that banks don’t engage in what is called proprietary trading—that is, when a firm trades for its own benefit instead of trading on behalf of its customers. In May 2012, JPMorgan Chase lost $2 billion on a bad trade, which led to calls for a strong Volcker rule.

Why is it called the Volcker rule? The rule is named after Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Federal Reserve in the 1980s, and later an adviser to President Barack Obama. He advocated this change in financial regulation and persuaded the president to back the rule in 2010, when the Dodd-Frank bill was passed.

2010? What took so long? One reason it took three years to finish the rule is that after the legislation was passed, the actual regulation had to be crafted jointly by five banking regulators—the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). That’s a lot of coordination amongst people with different backgrounds and priorities. And during the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney vowed to repeal Dodd-Frank. So for several months, wait-and-see regulators slowed down devising the details of the rule.

Wall Street lobbying also played a big part in delaying the unveiling of the final rule. The financial industry pushed like mad to get key loopholes into the regulation. “It’s relentless, nonstop, day and night lobbying,” Dennis Kelleher, the president of the financial reform advocacy group Better Markets, said a year ago. “It is absolute total nuclear war that Wall Street is engaged in here.” One loophole Wall Street tried to get written into the regulation would characterize certain forms of risky trading as hedging against risk. (Yes, you read that correctly.)

So who won? Kelleher says financial reformers won; these loopholes were not included. “Today’s finalization of the Volcker rule ban on proprietary trading is a major defeat for Wall Street and a direct attack on the high-risk ‘quick-buck’ culture of Wall Street,” he said in a statement. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the rule would have prevented JPMorgan’s $2 billion trading loss last year. CFTC commissioner Bart Chilton, a fierce Wall Street critic, is happy with the rule. Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the authors of the Dodd-Frank law, told Mother Jones today, “I have been confident all along that it would be a tough rule. I’ll make one prediction: all of the cries of doom that you’re going to hear from the financial institutions, three years from now will come to about as much validity as the cries of doom we heard about same-sex marriage.”

Obama noted, “Our financial system will be safer and the American people are more secure because we fought to include this protection in the law….I encourage Congress to give these regulators adequate funding to effectively and efficiently implement the rule, which will help protect hardworking families and business owners from future crisis, and restore everyone’s certainty and confidence in America’s dynamic financial system.”

But the success of the rule depends on how it is implemented. Marcus Stanley, the policy director at Americans for Financial reform, says that he’s “lukewarm” on the rule, mostly because a lot hangs on how it is interpreted by banking regulators who supervise compliance. “Whoever is the primary supervisor has enormous discretion about how this rule will affect trading,” he says, adding that the final Volcker rule does not include transparency provisions that would allow the public to judge whether banks are complying.

So is financial reform all finished now? No. Proprietary trading contributed to the crisis, but it was not the main cause. Regulators still have other Dodd-Frank provisions to finalize. Wall Street watchdogs have to implement plans to wind down failing banks; finish writing rules governing derivatives trading (which was largely unregulated before the financial crisis); and enforce strong requirements regarding the level of reserves banks must maintain.

What’s next? Wall Street is already preparing to fight the Volcker rule in the courts. The regulation could slash the combined annual profits of the eight largest banks by between $2 billion to $10 billion, according to Standard and Poor’s. “Wall Street’s loophole lawyers and other hired guns will… continue to hit at the rule as if it were a piñata,” Kelleher says.

Additional reporting by Patrick Caldwell.

Link: 

Here’s the Story Behind the Big Wall Street Reform Rule That Was Just Approved

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Story Behind the Big Wall Street Reform Rule That Was Just Approved

Remembering Nelson Mandela and His Fight for Climate Justice

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story first appeared on the Grist website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Nelson Mandela, who died last week, is best known for his fight against South African apartheid. But his long walk to freedom also included steps toward solving this mammoth problem called climate change. He envisioned a world where all people are able to live a fully dignified life, with clean air to breathe and clean water to drink—and where poor countries are not left with the repercussions of rich nation’s dirty ways.

Six years ago, Mandela founded The Elders, a cross-cultural group of leaders from across the globe, including former President Jimmy Carter and former United Nations Chief Kofi Annan, to forge human rights-based solutions to worldwide problems. One of the group’s top priorities is climate justice, which is not only about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also about ensuring the protection of those people and regions most vulnerable to the worst of climate change’s impacts.

Continue Reading »

See original article here: 

Remembering Nelson Mandela and His Fight for Climate Justice

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Remembering Nelson Mandela and His Fight for Climate Justice

At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

You’ve heard this story before, the one that played out again the week of Thanksgiving—this time in Lakeland, Florida—where 2-year-old Taj Ayesh got his little hands on his father’s loaded pistol, pulled the trigger, and crumpled to the ground. You may have heard about 9-year-old Daniel Wiley, who was playing outside his house in Harrisburg, Texas, when a 13-year-old mishandled an unsecured shotgun, blasting Wiley in the face. You may also have heard about 2-year-old Camryn Shultz of Forty Fort, Pennsylvania, whose embittered father put a bullet in her head before turning the gun on himself. Maybe you didn’t hear about the case in which a child shot others and then committed suicide, but that also happened this year. Twice.

A year after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mother Jones has analyzed the subsequent deaths of 194 children ages 12 and under who were reported in news accounts to have died in gun accidents, homicides, and suicides. They are spread across 43 states, from inner cities to tiny rural towns.

Following Sandy Hook, the National Rifle Association and its allies argued that arming more adults is the solution to protecting children, be it from deranged mass shooters or from home invaders. But the data we collected stands as a stark rejoinder to that view:

127 of the children died from gunshots in their own homes, while dozens more died in the homes of friends, neighbors, and relatives.
72 of the young victims either pulled the trigger themselves or were shot dead by another kid.
In those 72 cases, only 4 adults have been held criminally liable.
At least 52 deaths involved a child handling a gun left unsecured.

Additional findings include:

60 children died at the hands of their own parents, 50 of them in homicides.
The average age of the victims was 6 years old.
More than two-thirds of the victims were boys, as were more than three-quarters of the kids who pulled the trigger.
The problem was worst over the past year in the South, which saw at least 92 child gun deaths, followed by the Midwest (44), the West (38), and the East (20).

Our investigation drew on hundreds of local and national news reports. In some cases specific details remain unclear—often these tragedies are just a blip on the media’s radar. As with previous reports in our ongoing investigation of gun violence, Mother Jones has published all the data we collected in downloadable spreadsheet form. (For an ongoing tally of reported gun deaths, see this Slate project.)

As I reported in May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that over the last decade an average of about 200 children ages 12 and under died from guns every year. But those numbers don’t capture the full scope of the problem, due to inconsistencies in how states report shootings, and because the gun lobby long ago helped kill off federal funding for gun violence research. Our media-based analysis of child gun deaths also understates the problem, as numerous such killings likely never appear in the news. New research by two Boston surgeons drawing on pediatric records suggests that the real toll is higher: They’ve found about 500 deaths of children and teens per year, and an additional 7,500 hospitalizations from gunshot wounds.

“It’s almost a routine problem in pediatric practice,” says Dr. Judith Palfrey, a former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics who holds positions at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital. Palfrey herself (who is not involved with the above study) lost a 12-year-old patient she was close with to gun violence, she told me.

No other affluent society has this problem to such an extreme. According to a recent study by the Children’s Defense Fund, the gun death rate for children and teens in the US is four times greater than in Canada, the country with the next highest rate, and 65 times greater than in Germany and Britain.

The pediatric community has been focused on elevating the issue. Public health researchers have found that 43 percent of homes with guns and kids contain at least one unlocked firearm. One study found that a third of 8- to 12-year-old boys who came across an unlocked handgun picked it up and pulled the trigger. On Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a video emphasizing physicians’ role in keeping children safe from gun violence. The academy also issued specific recommendations this fall, including making sure firearms have trigger locks and storing them unloaded and under lock and key.

State legislators around the country have sought to require such precautions for gun owners, but the gun lobby has fought them vigorously. The NRA and other groups downplay the dangers firearms pose to children—in part by citing deficient federal data.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, research has shown that when doctors consult with their patients about the risk of keeping firearms in a home, it leads to “significantly higher rates” of handgun removal or safe storage practices. Here, too, the NRA has done battle: It backed the so-called “Docs vs. Glocks” law passed in Florida in 2011, which forbid doctors from asking patients about firearms.

That law may have come with a price: Among the 194 child gun deaths we analyzed, 17 took place in Florida. Seven were accidents, including three involving unsecured weapons in homes. “The children were covered in blood,” a shaken witness told a reporter after toddlers in a Lake City home played with a gun and fatally shot an 11-year-old boy in the neck.

Florida’s tally was second only to that of Texas, which saw 19 children killed over the last year. By comparison, the other two of the four most populous states, California and New York, saw 11 and 3 deaths, respectively. Already known for strict gun regulations, California and New York both passed additional restrictions after Sandy Hook. Texas, meanwhile, enacted 10 new laws deregulating guns, including weakening safety training requirements for concealed-carry permit holders and blocking universities and local governments from restricting firearms. Florida tightened mental health controls this year—one of 15 states to do so—but has otherwise operated as a de facto laboratory for permissive gun laws, including its Stand Your Ground statute made famous by the Trayvon Martin case.

In scores of the cases we studied, the type of weapon involved was either unknown to law enforcement authorities or not specified in news reports. But at least 76 involved a handgun, while another 34 involved long guns. (Semi-automatic handguns are also the most common weapon used in mass shootings.)

Often when kids are killed in gun accidents, public outrage focuses on the parents. But legal repercussions are another matter: While charges may be pending in some of the 84 accidental cases, we found only 9 in which a parent or adult guardian has been held criminally liable. And in 72 cases in which a child or teen pulled the trigger, only four adults have been convicted. According to the nonpartisan Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks state regulations closely, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have strong laws imposing criminal liability for negligent storage of guns with respect to children. (Florida, Texas, and California are among the 14.)

What happened a year ago in Newtown is still in some ways hard to fathom. The nation mourns again for the victims and families. But as Palfrey also puts it, “Newtown concentrated the horror in one place.” Whether by malice or tragic mistake, the day-to-day toll of children dying from guns goes on.

The data from our investigation can be viewed in two ways. See an interactive photo gallery of the 194 victims:

See the full data set behind the investigation in spreadsheet form:

Also see our award-winning investigation, America Under the Gun: A Special Report on the Rise of Mass Shootings.

Research contributed by Maggie Caldwell, Nina Liss-Schultz, and AJ Vicens. Charts produced by Jaeah Lee. Video produced by Brett Brownell.

Read the article:

At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown.

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown.

Dwarf-Tossing, Three-Way with Teen Employee Never Happened, Says Real "Wolf of Wall Street" Exec

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Wolf of Wall Street is the stuff that Oscar buzz is made of. Martin Scorsese‘s next film, set to be released on Christmas Day, chronicles the testosterone-soaked saga of Jordan Belfort, co-founder and chairman of Long Island brokerage house Stratton Oakmont, who went down for securities fraud and money laundering in the 1990s. (He served 22 months behind bars.)

The movie is based on Belfort’s 2007 memoir of the same name, which Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio—who plays the title character—have been looking to turn into a major motion picture since before copies hit bookstores. With a script by by Terence Winter (The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire), and performances from Matthew McConaughey, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, and Cristin Milioti, there’s little doubt that the film will be a prime Academy Awards contender.

DannyPorush.com

Both the memoir and the film tell an outrageous story, full of white-collar scandal, lust, and drug-fueled mayhem that includes sinking a yacht. And while thousands of the memoir’s readers have enjoyed the ride, some may close the book asking how much of Belfort’s wild tale is true.

Now, in advance of the film’s release, Danny Porush, the co-founder and ex-president of Stratton Oakmont, has a few bones to pick with how his years at the firm have been presented.

“The book…is a distant relative of the truth, and the film is a distant relative of the book,” says Danny Porush, who, between 1988 and 1996, was a close friend and partner of Belfort.

In the book, Porush is described as a businessman with a particularly killer instinct—a “Jew of the ultrasavage variety.” Like Belfort, Porush agreed to cooperate with authorities on investigations of other brokerage firms after the collapse of his own. He eventually served 39 months in prison, and now lives with his second wife in Florida, where he runs a Boca Raton medical-supply outfit.

Jonah Hill. YouTube

“My main complaint regarding the memoir besides his inaccuracy was his using my real name,” Porush says. Indeed, in the film, the character inspired by Porush, portrayed by Oscar-nominated actor Jonah Hill—has a different name: “Donnie Azoff.” The name was changed after the real Danny Porush threatened to sue the studio and filmmakers. (Paramount Pictures, the film’s US distributor, and Red Granite Pictures, the production company behind it, did not respond to requests for comment.)

Porush doesn’t deny, as the book depicts, engaging in his fair share of unfettered hedonism, nor does he deny doing his share of drugs or indulging in rowdy antics. For example, movie goers will see Jonah Hill do this to a goldfish:

Paramount Pictures/YouTube

Porush says: true story. “I said to one of the brokers, ‘If you don’t do more business, I’m gonna eat your goldfish!'” Porush recalls. “So I did.”

Of course, films inspired by actual events have a tendency to augment and exaggerate true life and characters beyond recognition. Fittingly, in addition to some complaints about the book’s accuracy, Porush has a run down of details from the trailers (the only parts of the movie he’s yet seen) that he claims stray far from the truth.

Porush’s quibbles start with the book’s cover—and the film’s title: Porush says he never heard anyone at the firm refer to Belfort as the “wolf.” And while sex was nearly as integrated into office life as the scams that made the firm’s owners millions, Porush strongly denies a long-established piece of Stratton lore detailed in the book, and dramatized in the film adaptation: that brokers became so debauched that Belfort was forced to issue a memo declaring the office a “fuck-free zone” from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on workdays.

Both trailers show the Stratton Oakmont boys celebrating their haul by throwing a giant salesroom party with strippers, a marching band, horses, “dwarf-tossing,” and a chimpanzee on roller skates. Some of those details come from the memoir’s depictions of entirely different events and parties; the scene appears to be a composite, rounded out with tidbits (such as the chimp) that Belfort told DiCaprio about in private conversation.

In Belfort’s 519-page book, the tossing of little people is only discussed as a possibility—and though DiCaprio’s Belfort is shown hurling a little person alongside his staff, Belfort says (through a representative) that he merely heard from several people that they were thrown sometime after he left the firm. “It’s not as crazy as it sounds,” Porush is quoted as saying in the book. “I mean, it’s not like we’re gonna toss the little bastard in any odd direction.”

Wall Street “dwarf-tossing.” Paramount Pictures/YouTube

Porush says Belfort’s version of the party, as depicted on the silver screen, includes several fictional hijinks. “There was never a chimpanzee in the office,” Porush maintains. “There were no animals in the office…I would also never abuse an animal in any way.” And while Porush admits the firm hired little people to attend and mingle at at least one party, “we never abused or threw the midgets in the office; we were friendly to them,” he emphasizes. “There was no physical abuse.”

“Stratton was like a fraternity,” Porush remembers. “A lot of goofing around, hazing—but the worst we ever did was shave somebody’s head and then pay ’em ten grand for it.” (On this, Porush and Belfort agree—a version of the haircut appears in his book.)

Granted, Scorsese’s picture is not a documentary. “Hey, it’s Hollywood,” Porush says. “I’m not a communist; I know they want to make a movie that sells. And Jordan wrote whatever he could to make the book sell. His greatest gift was always that of a self-promoter.”

In one scene, the Donnie Azoff character sits and watches as thick bricks of cash are strapped to a Swiss woman’s body. “I never taped money to boobs,” Porush says. Indeed, in the memoir, Porush is not present during this painful boob-tape incident. But there’s another part of the book that’s harder for him to laugh off. The book references Porush’s many dalliances with various female sales assistants. At least one of these attention-grabbers is, according to Porush, completely made up. The incident concerns a “wildly promiscuous” employee, one who was seventeen-years-old. Belfort wrote:

Anyway, about a month later, after a tiny bit of urging, Danny convinced me that it would be good if we both did her at the same time, which we did, on a Saturday afternoon while our wives were out shopping for Christmas dresses.

“I categorically deny this,” Porush says. “I’m not homophobic, but I never had sex with a girl with another guy. I’ve been with a zillion women, several women at the same time—but only just with women…Also, never any minors.” (While Porush thinks it’s highly unlikely the firm ever employed anyone under 18, it may be worth noting that the age of consent in New York state, where Stratton was based, is 17. A representative of Belfort, who declined to comment himself for this story, says that the author stands by the anecdote: “I guess I can see why Danny is denying it, but that’s what happened.”)

“I have no idea what else is in the movie or how it ends, except for a early draft of a screenplay that I read that was total fiction,” Porush says. “Hey, I have thick skin and can easily laugh at myself, but bribing federal agents, organized crime, violence, moles in the US Attorney’s office are not laughing matters.”

Regardless of how he feels about the film or the memoir’s attachment to reality, Porush says he’s excited to see the movie. “I’m a big fan of Scorsese, and DiCaprio,” he says. “Jonah Hill’s body of work, I don’t really know; it’s less of my generation—I’m almost 60 years old.” (He has seen Moneyball, however.)

And though he’s critical of the way Belfort painted their professional and personal history, Porush stresses that he doesn’t hold a grudge. “Life’s too short,” he says. “I don’t have any animosity toward Jordan…I spoke to him this past summer. I asked about his family, and wished him luck on the movie…We are not on unfriendly terms, I should say.”

“I’m looking forward to the movie coming out, and then going away but I hope it doesn’t glorify criminal behavior,” he continues. “I do not wish to try to profit from a crime that I’m remorseful for,” Porush says. “I respect their First Amendment rights, but I would never try to profit from those crimes. I’m still very emotional about what happened.”

Porush has chosen to leave his Stratton Oakmont days in the past, enjoying a comfortable life in Florida. Belfort, on the other hand, came out of jail and wrote a bestseller on his brokerage days. Belfort reportedly received a million-dollar pay day for the film, and DiCaprio cut a short video endorsing Belfort’s motivational speaking business—another key aspect in his years-long redemption tour.

More recently, the two have exchanged text messages, Porush tells me. They briefly discussed the fictionalization of events in the film, but Belfort predictably stood by the contents of his memoir. “I told him he should have come out of prison and started a new legit business, not live in the past,” Porush says.

As the film’s highly anticipated premiere approaches. I asked Porush if he buys Belfort’s present image as a changed man.

“Yeah, sure, why not?” he replies.

Visit site – 

Dwarf-Tossing, Three-Way with Teen Employee Never Happened, Says Real "Wolf of Wall Street" Exec

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dwarf-Tossing, Three-Way with Teen Employee Never Happened, Says Real "Wolf of Wall Street" Exec