EFTA00828851.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: jeevacation@gmail.com Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.. 4/24/2016 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 07:37:00 +0000 Attachments: Prince_Rogers_Nelson_bio.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(I).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png; image(10).png; image(11).png; image(12).png; image(13).png; image(14).png; image(I5).png; image(16).png; image(17).png; image(18).png; image(19).png; image(20).png; image(21).png; image(22).png; image(23).png; image(24).png; image(25).png DEAR FRIEND Election for Sale NEARLY HALF OF SUPER PAC $$$ FROM JUST 5o DONORS Inline image 1 As of March 1st, (which wasn't even the middle of the 2016 primary season) a small core of super-rich individuals was responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age. Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 5o mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to EFTA00828851 shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50. In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections. The staggering amounts reflect how super PACs are fundraising powerhouses just six years after they came on the scene. The concentration of fundraising power carries echoes of the end of the 19th century, when wealthy interests spent millions helping put former Ohio governor William McKinley in the White House. Inline image 3 Wealthy donors are giving record sums this cycle to super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. Whereas a Super Pac can't donate to or coordinate its spending with a political party or candidate, it can spend money independently on ads and other political activities. These groups are not allowed to coordinate their advertising with candidates or political parties, but often work in close proximity with the official campaigns. And although Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders say that they don't have Super PACs there are super PACs that promote both candidates respectively. Super PACs have proliferated since they were sanctioned by the Federal Court in 2010. And as of February 29'h they had already raised an astounding $607 million and spent more than $226 million on 2016 primary races. Five donors gave more than $10 million. Donors in this range gave a total of $72 million, or 1.4 percent of total donations. EFTA00828852  Inline image 2 In the Citizens United v. FEC case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain— Feingold Act or "BCRA". As a result, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that had prohibited corporate and union political independent expenditures in political campaigns. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns. Organizations seeking to contribute directly to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. In Speechnow.org, the federal Court of Appeals for the •. Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise of a new type of political action committee in 2010, popularly dubbed the "super PAC". In an open meeting on July 22, 2010, the FEC approved two Advisory Opinions to modify FEC policy in accordance with the legal decisions. These Advisory Opinions were issued in response to requests from two existing PACs, Club for Growth, and Commonsense Ten, which later became Senate Majority PAC. The opinions gave a sample wording letter which all Super PACs must submit to qualify for the deregulated status, and such letters continue to be used by Super PACs up to the present date. EFTA00828853 FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther dissented on both opinions and issued a statement giving his thoughts. In the statement, Walther stated "There are provisions of the Act and Commission regulations not addressed by the court in SpeechNow that continue to prohibit Commonsense Ten from soliciting or accepting contributions from political committees in excess of $5,000 annually or any contributions from corporations or labor organizations." Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees", may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size. The term "super PAC' was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney. According to Politico, Carney, a staff writer covering lobbying and influence for CQ Roll Call, "made the first identifiable, published reference to 'super PAC' as it's known today while working at National Journal, writing on June 26, 2010, of a group called Workers' Voices, that it was a kind of 'super PAC' that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United world.'" According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media. In the dissenting opinion of the Citizens United v. FEC case, Justice John Paul Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens read part of his go-page dissent from the bench. Stevens concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the Court. The dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He wrote: "A democracy cannotfunction effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." Stevens referenced a number of major First Amendment cases to argue that the Court had long recognized that to deny Congress the power to safeguard against "the improper use of money to influence the result of an election is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self- protection". Stevens' lengthy dissent specifically sought to address a number of the majority's central arguments: First, Stevens argued that the majority failed to recognize the possibility for corruption outside strict quid pro quo exchanges. Second, Stevens argued that the majority did not place enough emphasis on the need to prevent the "appearance of corruption" in elections. Earlier cases, including Buckley and Bellotti, recognized the importance of public confidence in democracy. Stevens cited recent data indicating that 8o% of the public view corporate independent expenditures as a method EFTA00828854  used to gain unfair legislative access. Stevens predicted that if the public believes that corporations dominate elections, disaffected voters will stop participating. Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process. Fourth, Stevens attacked the majority's central argument: that the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Stevens argued that corporations "unfairly influence" the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. Because a typical voter can only absorb so much information during a relevant election period, Stevens described "unfair corporate influence" as the potential to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the "marketplace of ideas". This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups. Fifth, Stevens criticized the majority's fear that the government could use BCRA §203 to censor the media. The focus placed on this hypothetical fear made no sense to Stevens because it did not relate to the facts of this case — if the government actually attempted to apply BCRA §203 to the media (and assuming that Citizens United could not constitute "media"), the Court could deal with the problem at that time. Sixth, Stevens claimed that the majority failed to give proper deference to the legislature. Stevens predicted that this ruling would restrict the ability of the states to experiment with different methods for decreasing corruption in elections. According to Stevens, this ruling virtually ended those efforts, "declaring byfiat" that people will not "lose faith in our democracy". Stevens argued that the majority's view of a self-serving legislature, passing campaign-spending laws to gain an advantage in retaining a seat, coupled with "strict scrutiny" of laws, would make it difficult for any campaign finance regulation to be upheld in future cases. Seventh, Stevens argued that the majority opinion ignored the rights of shareholders. A series of cases protects individuals from legally compelled payment of union dues to support political speech. Because shareholders invest money in corporations, Stevens argued that the law should likewise help to protect shareholders from funding speech that they oppose. Stevens concluded his dissent: EFTA00828855  At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics. FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther dissented on both opinions and issued a statement giving his thoughts. In the statement, Walther stated "There are provisions of the Act and Commission regulations not addressed by the court in SpeechNow that continue to prohibit Commonsense Ten from soliciting or accepting contributions from political committees in excess of $5,000 annually or any contributions from corporations or labor organizations." Despite the mixed impact that big-money groups have had on the presidential contest so far, donors on both sides of the aisle are expected to shell out hundreds of millions more to such entities before the November elections. "We're going to savefirepowerfor whoever the Republican nominee is," said Dallas investor Doug Deason, whose father, billionaire technology entrepreneur Darwin Deason, is currently financing super PACs supporting Sen. Ted Cruz. Wealthy patrons also are turning their attention to congressional races. Already, more than two dozen super PACs backing a single House or Senate candidate have emerged. ;`' Inline image 1 The biggest surge of cash is likely to come this fall, when millionaires and billionaires aligned with both parties fully engage in the fights over control of the White House and Congress. "Democratic donors see Republican donors giving huge, seven-figure checks to causes and efforts on the Republican side of the aisle, and our donors don't want to be silenced," said Alixandria Lapp, executive director of the House Majority PAC, a Democratic group that has raised $3.0 million. The biggest overall contributor to super PACs so far is San Francisco environmentalist and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, who has put $17 million into a super PAC he formed to support candidates committed to reducing climate change. Earlier this year he said that he plans to surpass the $70 million he plowed into the group to support Democrats during in the 2014 elections. And it is rumored that the Koch Brothers have approached a bunch of like-minded billionaires to assemble EFTA00828856 $800 million to $1 billion to take back the White House and support Conservative candidates and policies that reflect their interests. As such the 2016 elections will definitely be the most expensive politicians ever bought. So True Inline image 1 ****** Are these people crazy? Because everyone with a gun is not you friend EFTA00828857  Inline image 1 I thought that it was a joke when I read in a national newspaper that more than 33,000 people signed a petition to allow firearms inside the Republican National Convention being held in Cleveland in July. The article said that organizers had only sought only 5,000 signatures but has since quintupled, topping 25,000 within only several days. Among the petition's five goals, it calls upon Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, to mount a "concerted effort to use his executive authority to override the "gun-free zone" loophole being exploited by the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio." The name of the group initally purportedly behind the effort — Americans for Responsible Open Carry — does not appear anywhere else online and accepts online message only from networked supporters. Inline image 2 The Ohio Republican Party said it was not aware of the petition, the Journal reported, nor was the host committee overseeing the convention, although it noted that the Secret Service, in conjunction with Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and state and federal authorities, is handling security for the event. "They are coordinating and will be continuously refining security plans leading up to the national convention," said Alee Lockman, a spokesperson for the Republican National Convention. Firearms EFTA00828858 are currently not permitted inside the Quicken Loans Arena, known as "the Q," where the gathering will take place. Ohio is an open-carry state, however Quicken Loans Arena's rules don't allow weapons of any kind. This includes pepper spray and pocket knives. It doesn't include bile and invective. If pleading with the party and the governor doesn't work, the petitioners want a new venue. I cannot confirm they are considering the O.K Corral as a potential replacement. The petition also calls it "hypocritical" that a party supporting the Second Amendment would not allow guns at its convention. The petition states: This is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk. As the National Rifle Association has made clear, "gun-free zones" such as the Quicken Loans Arena are "the worst and most dangerous of all lies." The NRA, our leading defender of gun rights, has also correctly pointed out that "gun free zones... tell every insane killer in America... (the) safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk." The petition also claims that forcing attendees to leave firearms at home puts everyone in attendance at risk. It also notes the convention could be a potential target for an attack. Without the right to protect themselves, those at the Quicken Loans Arena will be sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers, criminals or others who wish to threaten the American way of life. Luckily the sober minds at the Department of Secret Service were not persuaded by the logic of a petition. The agency told ABC's Cleveland affiliate in a statement: Title 18 United States Code Sections 3056 and 1752 provides the Secret Service authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those located in open- carry states. Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site. The Secret Service works closely with our local law enforcement partners in each state to ensure a safe environment for our protectees and the public. Individuals determined to be carrying firearms will not be allowed past a predetermined outer perimeter checkpoint, regardless of whether they possess a ticket to the event. The gun ban has precedent, too — firearms were banned by the Secret Service at the RNC in Tampa in 2012. It turns out that the petition was a hoax by the satirical commentary blog Hyperationalist which has claimed responsibility. EFTA00828859  He or she writes: "It just doesn't seem right that thousands of patriotic Republican good guys should be left totally unprotected by whatever bad guys might wish to do them harm. I mean for god sake people, ISIS could show up to take out everybody in and around that building and they'd be sitting ducks. Sitting ducks, I tell you! There might even be a bad egg or two among the delegates." The Change.org petition claims that the arena's weapon ban makes those who attend the RNC in July "sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers and criminals." It's addressed to Republican candidates like Donald Trump, who's quoted as promising to eliminate gun-free zones in schools should he be elected. "Cleveland, Ohio is consistently ranked as one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America," the petition states. "By forcing attendees to leave their firearms at home, the RNC and Quicken Loans Arena are putting tens of thousands of people at risk both inside and outside of the convention site." The argument that gun-free zones are dangerous is thrown around loosely in political circles. It's often legitimized by misguided anecdotes. Trump and other candidates often finger the October mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon as a prime example of gun-free zones leaving locals at risk. While the college does prohibit guns on campus, school officials said at the time that the policy doesn't apply to concealed carries allowed by state law. There were students on campus with guns, anyway — The Huffington Post spoke to an Air Force veteran who had a legal gun on his hip during the shooting that left to dead. If recent Republican rallies are any indication, it's Trump who is putting convention-goers at risk. He regularly encourages violence at his events, and rallies that feature The Donald at the podium tend to conclude with fist fights, arrests and racism. We already know that a convicted felon or mentally unstable person can buy a gun without a background check in more than thirty states. Therefore, a highly charged tinderbox/environment of an open convention is the perfect storm for violence to erupt — especially when and knucklehead armed and believing that God is on their side feel justified to settle matters with a gun. So we have to ask, how come more than 33,000 people thought otherwise. Get Your Kink On This Kinky Version of AirBnB Lets You Rent Sex Dungeons and More EFTA00828860  Inline image 1 I had to smile when I read that there is now a company that has modeled its website on that of Airbnb, for people to list, find, and rent lodging - which is a privately owned company headquartered in San Francisco, California and founded in 2008 has over 1,500,000 listings in 34,000 cities and 190 countries. And as the article said - Going on vacation? Want to rent a home or space that will help you explore your sexual desires and home sharing sites like AirBnB just aren't cutting it? Check out KinkBnB. On KinkBnB, you can rent sex dungeons and stuff that I don't even want to know, as someone who decades ago realized that in the world of kink, there is some sh%t out there you don't want to fmd or find you. KinkBnB's website provides access to dungeons and other sex-positive environments that other home sharing sites can't or don't offer. Beyond that, it aims to connect people in queer and sex positive communities for finding spaces that fit their lifestyles and needs in unfamiliar locations. "We want help people explore themselves," co-founder Ryan Galiotto. "We also want to help the sex positive community grow and travel. It is not always easy to find where to go in a new city. But if you stay with someone already in the community, you have a host and guide." Ryan Galiotto: KinkBnB is a digital marketplace for adults to find spaces to play and places to stay where they don't have to hide their sexuality. We want help people explore themselves. Co-founder Darren McKeeman said that he has a friend who was renting her guest room on a popular home sharing sight. She also has a dungeon in her place that she uses and rents out but not at all listed on her ad. Suddenly and without explanation her listing was removed. She was understandably upset. She believes there might have been a sex toy or something too provocative in her ictures. When Darren heard about this, he to put up a mock site registering the address Overnight, through just word of mouth, we had over a hundred people sign up. They felt that this was something that needed to happen, so the team started the first alpha version of the site. Matias Drago joined the team shortly thereafter and relaunched with the current more robust website. This is how KinkBnB describes itself — A community-driven company that believes in sexual freedom for adults. We support those legal changes of society to protect people and their liberties. That's why we support the Red Umbrella Policy Project and local SWOP organizations. And, as individuals, EFTA00828861 support and volunteer for the NCSF. Want to see more from KinkBnB? Head here. A sex positive home-sharing community: Obviously it is important for people to have outlets like this to explore their sexuality. The founders of KinkBnB say that people need the room to explore themselves. Being able easily to rent a dungeon, a space designed for sexual play should be available to anyone who wants to. And that they want to make it a safe transaction where will people can travel, find accommodations without having to hide a part of themselves. There is San Francisco's Wicked Grounds, Kink Cafe and Bouti ue which are dedicated to providing a place where people can be sexually social and now is also one of those facilitators. ****** This is Terribly Wrong and No One Seems to Care Police have fatally shot at least 20 unarmed civilians this year, and cable news hasn't covered a single case. Inline image 1 Outrage over police abuse has disappeared in 2016, even with hundreds already killed by law enforcement this yea. As of April 22, 2016, and at least 310 people have been killed at the hands of American enforcement, and only a tiny percentage of the most informed Americans can name a single one of them. But even worse, at least 2O were totally unarmed. This is not just a problem, it is a disgrace. The hashtags and trending topics of police brutality victims that were once a staple from coast to coast have all but disappeared. The national pressure on police departments and prosecutors that were often generated as a result of that viral attention has dwindled to a trickle as well. Perhaps the presidential campaign has sucked the national wind out of every other possible news story. Attention that was previously given to Laquan McDonald and Sandra Bland has been diverted to cover the ugliness and bigotry of Donald Trump's rallies. Jose Cruz, a 16 year old who was unarmed when he was shot and killed by an off-duty officer in Addison, Texas should be a household name. John Crawford was fatally shot by cops outside an Ohio Walmart. He was holding a toy BB gun. Greg Gunn, age 56, was also unarmed when police shot and EFTA00828862 killed him just a block away from his home in Montgomery, Ala. He was a hardworking, beloved man who should've been able to walk in his own neighborhood without being attacked by law enforcement. David Joseph, 17, was completely naked and unarmed when he was shot and killed by police in Austin, Texas. His name and case should be known all over the country. There was no mention of Joseph on CNN, Fox News or MSNBC on the day he died, or on any day since, according to a Huffington Post review of programming. Instead, cable news gleefully reported that Donald Trump had called his Republican opponent Texas Sen. Ted Cruz a "pussy." The schoolyard insult prompted numerous segments, including "experts" speculating on whether the billionaire's vulgarity would sink his candidacy. (It didn't.) Again — There have been at least 20 cases in which cops have shot unarmed civilians to death this year, and a HuffPost examination of cable news transcripts found that the major cable news networks have not covered any of them. Inline image 2 David Joseph was killed by an Austin police officer in February. He was naked and unarmed at the time of his death. Officer Geoffrey Freeman responded to a radio call a few minutes before 10 M. on Feb. 8 - "Complaint that somebody jumped a fence and tried to chase a neighbor," the police dispatcher in Austin, Texas, said. "Black male, tall, thin, wearing jeans, boxers."The dispatcher left Freeman with a final detail. "No weapons,"she can be heard saying just before the call, later released to the public, cuts out. Freeman headed toward the disturbance, which was taking place in a pocket of suburbia a couple of miles north of the University of Texas at Austin campus. The last of a series of 911 calls relayed to Freeman reported a "totally nude black male" in the area. Freeman, a to-year veteran of the force, called for additional units and continued his search. "Sounds like this guy could either be ... io-86 [subject with mental illness] and losing it or high or something," he told dispatch, according to a memo later published by Austin's Citizen Review Panel. Within half an hour of arriving, Freeman found what he was looking for. He exited his cruiser and confronted David Joseph, who was completely naked and standing in the middle of the street. After just seconds of verbal contact, Joseph, a 17-year-old known to his friends as Pronto, lay dying on the asphalt. Freeman had shot him through the heart. Medical examiners would officially describe Joseph as African-American, 5 feet 7 inches tall and 146 pounds. Officer Geoffrey Freeman who shot Joseph was 46 years old and also black, stood at the same height, but was nearly too pounds heavier than the teen. A toxicology report later found traces of EFTA00828863 marijuana, the prescription drug Xanax and an antihistamine in Joseph's system. It's still unclear what drove him to strip off his clothes and run around the neighborhood. Take the case of Antronie Scott, a 36-year-old black man who was shot and killed by San Antonio Police Officer John Lee in February, just days before Joseph's fatal shooting. Lee found Scott, who was wanted on two felony charges, sitting in the parking lot of his girlfriend's apartment complex. According to Lee, Scott made a sudden turn after he stepped out of his car. Lee says he thought he saw a gun. It was a cell phone. Janet Wilson was shot and killed in the parking lot of a mall in Dearborn, Michigan after she was reported for causing a disturbance. The 31 year old had a history of mental illness and was completely unarmed. Kelsey Hauser, 25, was killed by California police in January. She was a passenger in a stolen car that had led officers on a high-speed chase. Police claim the driver drove the vehicle toward the officers, leading them to open fire. A dog was also fatally wounded in the shooting. The local media landscape has also contributed to the obscurity of many of these cases. Small, often under-resourced newsrooms are more likely to prioritize pro-police narratives, which helps explain why their coverage sometimes tends to be linear and uncritical of law enforcement, Oates said. "You have to build a relationship with the local officials as a reporter. You have to make decisions about which bridges to burn," she said. "And IN love to say it doesn't work that way, but ask any local reporter and they'll tell you, you've got to pick your battles." That could be one reason you probably haven't heard about 25-year-old Kelsey Hauser, who was killed in January by an El Cajon, California, police officer. She was sitting in the passenger seat of a stolen car that was reportedly accelerating toward an officer. Or Calin Roquemore, a 24-year-old killed in February by a state trooper in Beckville, Texas, after exiting his car and trying to flee on foot following a brief chase. Or Cristian Medina, a mentally ill 23-year-old fatally shot in Florence, California, last month after he reportedly pointed his finger at officers like a gun. All of these individuals were unarmed. And despite concerning details about the circumstances of these shootings, they've received only perfunctory coverage from local outlets and none from national sources. The media isn't asking hard questions of the police, which likely means nobody else is either. Victims' families are then left to trust that law enforcement will properly handle issues of transparency and accountability on their own, absent outside pressure. These stories, unfortunately, could go on and on and on. It's troubling enough that that they happen. It's doubling disturbing that they are now happening in relative anonymity. Some may ask why the coverage itself matters so much, but for many families, the coverage of the police brutality their loved one suffered not only aids the quest for justice, it is sometimes the only justice they receive. EFTA00828864  ;`' Inline image 3 Eric Gamer's death drew national outrage and media attention. This year, widespread anger has been muted. In 2015, while more police were indicted in the deaths of citizens than any other year ever measured, not a single officer was convicted. For the families of people like Eric Gamer, John Crawford, Rekia Boyd, and Ramarley Graham, the public attention given to the injustice they suffered is some of the only justice they'll ever receive. The courts failed them. They've failed in almost every case. Even in San Francisco, where 14 police officers were caught texting the most racist and violent messages to each other, the system failed and they all kept their jobs due to a technicality. The only justice available is publicly shaming them. I hate that it has come to this, but outside of going Daredevil vigilante on corrupt and violent police, what other options do we have? Have you seen Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Mike Brown in Ferguson, over the past year? While he paid no legal price for what he did, and actually raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself in the process, the public notoriety has at least forced to live him in obscurity. The same is true for many other officers, but this is a poor excuse for justice. Now though, as public pressure declines, even this is less of an option. Inline image 4 A month and a half after Joseph's death, Austin's police chief, Art Acevedo, announced that Freeman had been "indefinitely suspended" from the department. "Officer Freeman chose to confront Mr. Joseph alone [and]... chose to utilize deadlyforce to Mr. Joseph, even though he knew other officers had yet to arrive but were imminently in route," read a memo from Acevedo. "Freeman's decision to draw his weapon when he exited his vehicle was unwarranted. ... There were no extenuating circumstances why he could not maintain a safe distance while keeping Mr. Joseph in view." EFTA00828865 Matthew Simpson, a policy strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas who works on issues of police misconduct, says there could be an upside to the fact that Joseph's case didn't get more national attention. While Austin has handled previous controversial police shootings poorly, city officials worked proactively to address the community's anxiety and anger over Joseph's killing. They formed a coalition of concerned parties, solicited input from activists and proceeded in a timely and relatively transparent manner to keep the public informed about the case. It seemed like they might have been listening to the message the Black Lives Matter movement has been sending. "It's not as interesting a story if there's misconduct and the police actually handle it appropriately," Simpson said. "It sort of proves that if individual officers who are bad actors are held accountable, the community is willing to acknowledge that." It's still unclear if Freeman will face criminal charges for the shooting. Last month, he filed an appeal to keep his job. But the problem is that last year 1145 people were killed by police officers and at least 200 were unarmed. The fact that we are almost in May and more than 307 people have been killed by police and at least 20 were unarmed is a travesty and my rant of the week... WEEK's READINGS Inline image 1 Diabetes, often referred to by doctors as diabetes mellitus, describes a group of metabolic diseases in which the person has high blood glucose (blood sugar), either because insulin production is inadequate, or because the body's cells do not respond properly to insulin, or both. Patients with high blood sugar will typically experience polyuria (frequent urination), they will become increasingly thirsty (polydipsia) and hungry (polyphagia). EFTA00828866 As of 2014, an estimated 387 million people have diabetes worldwide, with type 2 DM making up about 90% of the cases. This represents 8.3% of the adult population, with equal rates in both women and men. From 2012 to 2014, diabetes is estimated to have resulted in 1.5 to 4.9 million deaths each year. Diabetes at least doubles a person's risk of death. The number of people with diabetes is expected to rise to 592 million by 2035. The global economic cost of diabetes in 2014 was estimated to be $612 billion USD. In the United States, diabetes cost $245 billion in 2012 1) Type 1 diabetes The body does not produce insulin. Some people may refer to this type as insulin-dependent diabetes, juvenile diabetes, or early-onset diabetes. People usually develop type 1 diabetes before their 4oth year, often in early adulthood or teenage years. Type 1 diabetes is nowhere near as common as type 2 diabetes. Approximately 10% of all diabetes cases are type 1. Patients with type 1 diabetes will need to take insulin injections for the rest of their life. They must also ensure proper blood-glucose levels by carrying out regular blood tests and following a special diet. a) Type a diabetes The body does not produce enough insulin for proper function, or the cells in the body do not react to insulin (insulin resistance). Some people may be able to control their type 2 diabetes symptoms by losing weight, following a healthy diet, doing plenty of exercise, and monitoring their blood glucose levels. However, type 2 diabetes is typically a progressive disease —it gradually gets worse — and the patient will probably end up have to take insulin, usually in tablet form. Overweight and obese people have a much higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those with a healthy body weight. People with a lot of visceral fat, also known as central obesity, belly fat, or abdominal obesity, are especially at risk. Being overweight/obese causes the body to release chemicals that can destabilize the body's cardiovascular and metabolic systems. Being overweight, physically inactive and eating the wrong foods all contribute to our risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Drinking just one can of (non-diet) soda per day can raise our risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 22%, researchers from Imperial College London reported in the journal EFTA00828867 Diabetologia. The scientists believe that the impact of sugary soft drinks on diabetes risk may be a direct one, rather than simply an influence on body weight. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes is also greater as we get older. Experts are not completely sure why, but say that as we age we tend to put on weight and become less physically active. Those with a close relative who had/had type 2 diabetes, people of Middle Eastern, African, or South Asian descent also have a higher risk of developing the disease. Men whose testosterone levels are low have been found to have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, say that low testosterone levels are linked to insulin resistance. 3) Gestational diabetes This type affects females during pregnancy. Some women have very high levels of glucose in their blood, and their bodies are unable to produce enough insulin to transport all of the glucose into their cells, resulting in progressively rising levels of glucose. The majority of gestational diabetes patients can control their diabetes with exercise and diet. Between io% to 2o% of them will need to take some kind of blood-glucose-controlling medications. Undiagnosed or uncontrolled gestational diabetes can raise the risk of complications during childbirth. The baby may be bigger than he/she should be. Scientists from the National Institutes of Health and Harvard University found that women whose diets before becoming pregnant were high in animal fat and cholesterol had a higher risk for gestational diabetes, compared to their counterparts whose diets were low in cholesterol and animal fats. EFTA00828868  Inline image 2 Complications linked to badly controlled diabetes Below is a list of possible complications that can be caused by badly controlled diabetes: ■ Eye complications - glaucoma, cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, and some others. ■ Foot complications - neuropathy, ulcers, and sometimes gangrene which may require that the foot be amputated ■ Skin complications - people with diabetes are more susceptible to skin infections and skin disorders ■ Heart problems - such as ischemic heart disease, when the blood supply to the heart muscle is diminished ■ Hypertension - common in people with diabetes, which can raise the risk of kidney disease, eye problems, heart attack and stroke ■ Mental health - uncontrolled diabetes raises the risk of suffering from depression, anxiety and some other mental disorders ■ Hearing loss - diabetes patients have a higher risk of developing hearing problems ■ Gum disease - there is a much higher prevalence of gum disease among diabetes patients ■ Gastroparesis - the muscles of the stomach stop working properly ■ ICetoacidosis - a combination of ketosis and acidosis; accumulation of ketone bodies and acidity in the blood. ■ Neuropathy - diabetic neuropathy is a type of nerve damage which can lead to several different problems. EFTA00828869  ■ HHNS (Hyperosmolar Hyperglycemic Nonketotic Syndrome) - blood glucose levels shoot up too high, and there are no ketones present in the blood or urine. It is an emergency condition. ■ Nephropathy - uncontrolled blood pressure can lead to kidney disease ■ PAD (peripheral arterial disease) - symptoms may include pain in the leg, tingling and sometimes problems walking properly ■ Stroke - if blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood glucose levels are not controlled, the risk of stroke increases significantly ■ Erectile dysfunction - male impotence. ■ Infections - people with badly controlled diabetes are much more susceptible to infections ■ Healing of wounds - cuts and lesions take much longer to heal What is prediabetes? The vast majority of patients with type 2 diabetes initially had prediabetes. Their blood glucose levels where higher than normal, but not high enough to merit a diabetes diagnosis. The cells in the body are becoming resistant to insulin. Studies have indicated that even at the prediabetes stage, some damage to the circulatory system and the heart may already have occurred. Diabetes is a metabolism disorder Diabetes (diabetes mellitus) is classed as a metabolism disorder. Metabolism refers to the way our bodies use digested food for energy and growth. Most of what we eat is broken down into glucose. Glucose is a form of sugar in the blood — it is the principal source of fuel for our bodies. When our food is digested, the glucose makes its way into our bloodstream. Our cells use the glucose for energy and growth. However, glucose cannot enter our cells without insulin being present - insulin makes it possible for our cells to take in the glucose. Insulin is a hormone that is produced by the pancreas. After eating, the pancreas automatically releases an adequate quantity of insulin to move the glucose present in our blood into the cells, as soon as glucose enters the cells blood-glucose levels drop. A person with diabetes has a condition in which the quantity of glucose in the blood is too elevated (hyperglycemia). This is because the body either does not produce enough insulin, produces no insulin, or has cells that do not respond properly to the insulin the pancreas produces. This results in too much glucose building up in the blood. This excess blood glucose eventually passes out of the body in urine. So, even though the blood has plenty of glucose, the cells are not getting it for their essential energy and growth requirements. EFTA00828870 How to determine whether you have diabetes, prediabetes or neither Doctors can determine whether a patient has a normal metabolism, prediabetes or diabetes in one of three different ways — there are three possible tests: • The MC test - at least 6.5% means diabetes - between 5.7% and 5.99% means prediabetes - less than 5.7% means normal • The FPG (fasting plasma glucose) test - at least 126 mg/dl means diabetes - between 100 mg/dl and 125.99 mg/dl means prediabetes - less than ioo mg/dl means normal An abnormal readingfollowing the FPG means the patient has impairedfasting glucose (IFG) • The OGTT (oral glucose tolerance test) - at least 200 mg/dl means diabetes - between 140 and 199.9 mg/dl means prediabetes - less than 140 mg/dl means normal An abnormal readingfollowing the OG7T means the patient has impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) Controlling diabetes - treatment is effective and important All types of diabetes are treatable. Diabetes type 1 lasts a lifetime, there is no known cure. Type 2 usually lasts a lifetime, however, some people have managed to get rid of their symptoms without medication, through a combination of exercise, diet and body weight control. Researchers from the Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale showed that gastric bypass surgery can reverse type 2 diabetes in a high proportion of patients. They added that within three to five years the disease recurs in approximately 21% of them. Yessica Ramos, MD., said "The recurrence rate was mainly influenced by a longstanding history of Type 2 diabetes before the surgery. This suggests that early surgical intervention in the obese, diabetic population will improve the durability of remission of Type 2 diabetes." Patients with type i are treated with regular insulin injections, as well as a special diet and exercise. Patients with Type 2 diabetes are usually treated with tablets, exercise and a special diet, but sometimes insulin injections are also required. If diabetes is not adequately controlled the patient has a significantly higher risk of developing complications. Diabetes explosion around the world EFTA00828871  Inline image Prevention If you're at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, listen to your doctor's advice. He or she may prescribe medication and help you make small lifestyle changes, such as: • Losing weight. Losing 7-10 percent of your body weight can reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by up to 5o percent. • Exercise. When you work out, you're also training you're endocrine system to produce more insulin. • Eat healthy. Processed carbohydrates, sugary drinks, red and processed me