Share

Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Monday 21 March 2016

Cuba Meeting Between Obama and Castro Exposes Old Grievances

Cuba Meeting Between Obama and Castro Exposes Old Grievances


HAVANA — President Obama stood beside President Raúl Castro on Monday and declared a “new day” of openness between the United States and Cuba, but old grievances and disputes over human rights marred a groundbreaking meeting and underscored lingering impediments to ahistoric thaw.
The two presidents, meeting at the Revolutionary Palace for the first such official contact between their two governments in more than a half-century, engaged in a frank and at times awkward exchange with each other and reporters. Mr. Obama at turns prodded Mr. Castro to submit to questions during an extraordinary 55-minute news conference.
Standing at lecterns in a cavernous granite-walled hall in front of Cuban and American flags, the two leaders traded criticism of each other’s countries even as both said they were committed to continuing on the path to normalizing relations.
“Give me a list of the political prisoners and I will release them immediately,” Mr. Castro said, asked by a reporter about dissidents his government has arrested. “Just mention the list. What political prisoners?”
Human rights groups quickly produced rosters, distributed over email and social media, of people they said had been imprisoned in Cuba for demonstrating against or otherwise challenging Mr. Castro’s government.

PHOTOGRAPHS

The Last Thaw: U.S.-Cuban Relations in Pictures

President Obama’s visit to Cuba heralds the end of decades of enmity and hostility between that country and the United States.
 OPEN PHOTOGRAPHS
Mr. Castro sought to turn the human rights criticism on the United States, arguing that countries that do not provide universal health care, education and equal pay are in no position to lecture Cuba. He also said the United States military base at Guantánamo Bay should be returned to Cuba.
“It’s not correct to ask me about political prisoners,” Mr. Castro said.
Mr. Obama said he had pressed the Cuban president in their meeting over Cuba’s treatment of dissidents and reaffirmed that he would meet with some dissidents privately on Tuesday. But he also assured Mr. Castro that the United States had no intention of dictating his country’s future.
Continue reading the main story
“I affirm that Cuba’s destiny will not be decided by the United States or any other nation,” Mr. Obama said. “Cuba is sovereign and rightly has great pride, and the future of Cuba will be decided by Cubans, not by anybody else.”
The president went a step further, in comments likely to be seized upon by critics of his push to pursue an opening with Cuba, conceding that the United States must face up to the criticisms Mr. Castro unleashed.
“I actually welcome President Castro commenting on some of the areas where he feels that we’re falling short, because I think we should not be immune or afraid of criticism or discussion as well,” Mr. Obama said.
The apparent rapport between the two presidents at the news conference was a striking display of warmth on a day that was dominated by the symbolism of the first tentative openings between Cuba and the United States since the Cold War.
Mr. Obama said he expected to see the lifting of the United States’ trade embargo of Cuba, something Mr. Castro called “the most important obstacle to our economic development and the well-being of the Cuban people.”
“We agree that a long and complex path still lies ahead,” Mr. Castro said, smiling warmly at Mr. Obama at times, even when the American president teased his Cuban host about the Castro family’s penchant for stem-winding speeches. “What is most important is that we have started taking the first steps to build a new type of relationship, one that has never existed between Cuba and the United States.”
There were awkward moments as well, with both presidents pushing each other outside their comfort zones. Mr. Obama, who was determined to mark the occasion with a news conference — something Mr. Castro seldom if ever does — prodded the Cuban leader to submit to journalists’ questions.
After Mr. Obama finished answering a question from Andrea Mitchell, the NBC News correspondent, he urged Mr. Castro to do so as well.
“It’s up to you,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Castro. “She’s one of our most esteemed journalists in America, and I’m sure she’d appreciate just a short, brief answer.”
Mr. Castro did answer Ms. Mitchell’s query about human rights, scolding her that the question was unfair.
Photo
Cubans crowded the streets of Havana on Sunday to try to catch a glimpse of President Obama and his family.CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times
After the news conference, the two men joined hands in what appeared to be a cross between a handshake and the raising of a revolutionary fist; Mr. Obama held out his arm awkwardly and it ended up as neither.
Mr. Obama began his day at the memorial to the Cuban journalist and poet José Martí, whose ideals are invoked with zeal in Miami and Havana.
A Cuban military band played “The Star-Spangled Banner” under a billowing Cuban flag as the American president and a Cuban Politburo member appeared side by side, flanked in the distance by huge sculptured portraits of Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos, the revolutionaries who were intimates of Fidel Castro.
During his carefully stage-managed visit this week, Mr. Obama does not plan to meet with Fidel Castro, 89, the former president, who is Raúl’s older brother.
But he said in an interview with ABC News on Monday that he would be “happy” to meet at some point with the elder Mr. Castro. “If his health was good enough that I could meet with him, I’d be happy to meet with him, just as a symbol of the end of the — or the closing of this Cold War chapter in our mutual histories,” Mr. Obama said.
In Havana on Monday, many Cubans still seemed uncertain about whether they had permission to try to see Mr. Obama, never mind express a point of view. Cubans all over the city seemed to be constantly asking where Mr. Obama would be.

Cuba on the Edge of Change

Photographs from a land of endless waiting and palpable erosion — but also, an uncanny openness among everyday people.
In Parque Central in Havana, Mr. Obama’s visit touched off talk of politics, freedom, race and the scene of an American president at Revolution Plaza near an image of Guevara.
“I see the Cubans in the United States talking bad about Obama because he was standing with the image of Che behind him,” said Alfredo Calderon, 83, a retired musician who now works as a custodian. “I don’t see it as bad.”
He continued: “I have to admit, I am 83 years old, and I have seen a lot happen. I did not think I would see that.”
In a nation that stifles dissent, the men in the square were quick to shout out the kinds of things they hope Mr. Obama will bring to Cuba. “Freedom of speech!” one man shouted. “Freedom of expression!” another echoed.
“We want change,” said Angel Maturrell, a small-business owner. “Change. Change. Change. All kinds. Any kind. We are tired of waiting.”
A few blocks away, Cubans and foreigners found themselves running into American lawmakers and V.I.P.s touring the city.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont was spotted by the cathedral; Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York was also easy to find. Wearing a seersucker suit and a Tampa Bay Rays baseball cap, Mr. Rangel said he could not have been happier. He spent decades in Congress working to end the embargo.
He said he was confident that restored relations would yield benefits for both nations.
“I never knew we could bring such a crack in the wall,” Mr. Rangel said. “We’re creating the right conditions for when change really comes.”

Credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/world/americas/obama-and-raul-castro-to-meet-in-pivotal-moment-for-us-cuba-thaw.html?_r=0 

John Oliver tears down Donald Trump's wall

John Oliver tears down Donald Trump's wall



Donald Trump wants to build a wall on the Mexico-US border — a big, beautiful wall, of course. And while this idea may sound inherently ridiculous to a lot of people, Trump is very serious about it. So on Sunday's Last Week Tonight, Oliver decided to take Trump's primary policy proposal seriously.
There are lots of problems, according to Oliver:
  • Cost: Trump has at varying times estimated that the wall will cost anywhere from $4 billion to $12 billion. But according to the Washington Post, experts put the estimate closer to at least $25 billion. And while Trump insists Mexico will pay for the wall, there is zero evidence for that: Mexican officials have flat-out rejected the idea.
  • Geography: Where does the wall go? As Oliver points out, this isn't as easy a question to answer as you might think. Large parts of the border are made up of the Rio Grande river. The wall can't be built to obstruct the flow of the river, per a 1970 treaty. 

    As a consequence, big parts of the border fence approved in 2006 were built inland, sometimes actually blocking off US territory, such as the Fort Brown Memorial Golf Course. As the Guardian put it, the fence has turned into a "costly logistical nightmare."
  • Effectiveness: It's not clear whether the wall would do much, if anything, to stop the flow of unauthorized immigrants into the US. In a 2006 report, the Pew Research Center estimated that "nearly half of all the unauthorized migrants now living in the United States entered the country legally through a port of entry such as an airport or a border crossing point where they were subject to inspection by immigration officials" — and then they just remained in the country without authorization. A wall wouldn't stop them. 

    Not to mention all the people who would get around the wall with a ladder, rope, or underground tunnel.
Does this matter to Trump and his supporters? Maybe not. As Oliver noted, many people may want the wall as a symbol — it feels like it keeps the US safe. Trump has said it keeps out Mexican immigrants whom he characterized as "rapists" and "criminals." But acentury of empirical research suggests Trump is wrong: Immigrants are potentially less, not more, likely to commit crime than their native-born counterparts. So it's not clear just how much safer it would make America.
Ultimately, Oliver suggested that buying a $75 electric waffle iron for every American would be a better use of the money than building a wall.
"I know what you're thinking: 'John, this is a stupid idea.' But is it? Is it, really? Yes, obviously, it is," Oliver said. "But is it significantly stupider than Donald Trump's wall? Because this waffle iron plan will cost less, it'll do nearly as much to keep out immigrants and drugs, it won't harm our relationship with our third-largest trading partner, if it is racist it's only toward Belgians, and, unlike Donald Trump's wall, this makes fucking waffles."
Credit: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11275300/john-oliver-trump-wall-last-week-tonight 

Saturday 19 March 2016

TRUMP PICKS UP SEVENTH LAWMAKER ENDORSEMENT

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's outsider campaign has picked up its seventh congressional endorsement.
In endorsing Trump, Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) this week became the second New York Republican to throw his support behind the controversial businessman.
Reed decided to support Trump after the billionaire's string of victories in four more state primaries on Tuesday, adding to his delegate lead over rivals Ted Cruz and John Kasich and forcing Marco Rubio out of the race.
"Now is the time to unite behind the candidate who I believe will be our nominee, Donald Trump," Reed said in a statement Wednesday, according to Syracuse.com.
"We must move beyond the bombastic rhetoric to positive discussion about creating jobs and improving the lives of all Americans. We all care about improving people's lives — that should always be our focus," Reed added.
Reed initially backed Jeb Bush's presidential campaign. Bush dropped out in late February after poor showings in early-voting states.
Fellow New York Rep. Chris Collins last month became the first congressional Republican to back Trump. Four other representatives and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) have since backed Trump, along with three governors.
Trump's endorsements pale in comparison to those for Cruz, who boasts nearly 30 congressional endorsements. Kasich has nine lawmakers backing his campaign. Several who had supported Bush and Rubio have since backed Cruz.

Thursday 17 March 2016

Trump campaign ad clips wings of fledgling Putin friendship

Video posted on Trump’s Instagram account shows Vladimir Putin throwing a judo opponent and Hillary Clinton barking

A few months ago, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin seemed on course to becoming best buddies.
Asked in December for his view of the Republican presidential frontrunner, the Russian president described him as “a colourful and talented person without any doubt” and “the absolute leader of the presidential race”. Trump welcomed the praise, saying: “It is always a great honour to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”
Any cosiness has been brought to an abrupt halt, however, after Trump lumped Putin in with Islamic State in a bizarre campaign ad featuring Hillary Clintonbarking like a dog.
The video, posted on Trump’s Instagram account, attempts to cast doubt over the Democratic party frontrunner’s ability to deal with Putin and America’s opponents in general, showing the Russian leader throwing an opponent in a judo bout, and an Islamist militant gesturing at the camera with a gun.
“When it comes to facing our toughest opponents, the Democrats have the perfect answer,” the video says, before cutting to footage of Clinton imitating a dog at a recent campaign event.
Curtsy: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/17/kremlin-complains-demonisation-of-russia-in-donald-trump-ad

Wednesday 16 March 2016

Violent Crime: The US and Abroad


Violent Crime: The US and Abroad

Is violent crimereally getting worse in America?
The US has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world. We have massive organized crime, drug and human trafficking, and ever-looming terrorist threats. We have one of the most organized and efficient police forces on Earth. We also have a never-ending news cycle to remind us of these things. With sensationalism in the news, and stories of shooting sprees on a monthly basis, is violent crime really getting worse in America? Where does our perception that crime is growing meet the actual numbers? How does violent crime in America stack up against the rest of the world?
Perhaps the most difficult part of comparing violent crime in the US and abroad is determining who we’re comparing with the US. Middle Eastern, Central American, and African metropolises are by and large much more dangerous than US cities, but are they representative of the rest of the world?
Most of Europe is safer than Detroit, but are Detroit and Europe representative?
Violent-Crime-Hybrid1
78.6% of Americans have confidence in local police; a measure only topped by Scandinavian nations and Canada.
More than 3 out of 4 Americans feel safe walking around where they live at night. While this is a measurement of perceived crime, and not crime itself, the perception is that the US as a whole is as safe as most modern industrialized nations. This is probably bolstered by the fact that 78.6% of Americans have confidence in local police; a measure only topped by Scandinavian nations and Canada. Plus the fact that a large percentage of violent crime in America is concentrated in relatively small geographic areas, and, as we know, the US is a massive place.
Violent crime has declined sharply in the US since the mid 1990’s. While this is due to a variety of changes in enforcement, rehabilitation of criminals, and overall higher standards of living, a large portion of the similarities between the crime levels of US and western European countries hinges on differences in what crimes are reported. The FBI counts four categories of crime as violent crime: murder and non-negligible manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. While aggravated assault is the only assault category included under violent crime reports in the US, other nations include the much more numerous level 1 assault in violent crime reporting. This makes the US appear relatively less violent from a statistical perspective.
The US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries.
Another difference between the US and other relatively safe developed nations is that the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries. 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993, yet still leaves the US at 4.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, Japan has .4 murders per 100,000 residents. Germany has .8, Australia 1, France 1.1, and Britain–who has recently garnered media attention for being the most dangerous wealthy European nation– has 1.2.

A Land of Extremes

You’re more than 10 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide in New Orleans than America as a whole.
The most dangerous US cities rank among the most deadly cities in the world. New Orleans, which topped the list in 2012, saw one homicide for every 2000 residents. To put this number in perspective, the average homicide per 100,000 citizen rate for the US is 4.8. Meaning you’re more than 10 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide in New Orleans than America as a whole.
Bear in mind, however, that the cities with the top 5 homicide rates in the world boast substantially higher rates than any other cities on the list. To put the numbers in context, you’re more than 3 times likelier to be the victim of a homicide in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, than in New Orleans, and more than 30 times more likely when comparing San Pedro Sula to the US as a whole.
Violent-Crime-Hybrid2
The US is a in a pandemic of homicides
Another notable trend is that no European or Asian cities are in the top 50 deadliest cities. This complicates the picture of the US standing toe-to-toe with the industrialized world as a low violent crime nation. At the very least, the deadliest cities in the US have many more homicides than the deadliest cities in Europe and Asia. At most, the US is a in a pandemic of homicides, even while other types of violent crime are stifled.

Types of Violent Crime

The US has a very specific brand of violence. Perhaps our criminals are just more motivated than the rest of the world, or perhaps having a firearm for every man, woman or child in America ups the ante in confrontations. Either way, the involvement of guns in violent crime (and the defense against violent crime) is a decidedly American phenomena amongst developed nations.
Violent-Crime-Hybrid3
With gun restrictions making it harder to obtain private weapons in the UK, violent crimes involving guns have greatly decreased. The number of total violent crimes, however, is almost double that of the US. Of those crimes, only 19% even involve a weapon, and only 5% of those involve a firearm. That means that of you’re roughly 1/100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in Britain and Wales in any given year, you have roughly a 1/10,000 chance of being in a violent crime involving a gun.
In the US your chances of being involved in a violent crime are less than 1/250.
Alternately, in the US your chances of being involved in a violent crime are less than 1/250.Of those involved with violent crimes, however, you have greater than a 1/10,000 chance of being involved in a violent crime involving a gun. In a country with less than half the violent crime, you have a greater chance of being the victim of a violent crime involving a gun.
Here’s where gun control advocates would say that the proliferation of easily available and private firearms enable gun crimes. This is also where gun rights advocates would point to the much lower violent crime rate in a similarly governed and wealthy nation. In a way, they’re both right. Much as the US is both in line with other developed nations on violent crime, and an outlier–with several cities more dangerous than anywhere in Europe or Asia–violent crime in America is as sprawling as the opportunities to commit crime.
Credit: http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/

8 extreme cases of insurance fraud

Extreme fraud cases
Next
1 of 9
Extreme fraud cases
What do a rodent in a bowl of soup, a tricked-out street racer at the bottom of a lake, a foreclosure mysteriously set ablaze and a woman who died twice have in common?
They're all part of the outrageous world ofinsurance scams, in which cash-strapped policyholders, phony or unscrupulous insurance agents, desperate business owners and sundry con artists conspire to defraud insurers by filing inflated or outright bogus claims.
A victimless crime? Hardly.
"The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud conservatively estimates that insurance fraud costs $80 billion a year in stolen claims, not including the social costs," says James Quiggle, spokesman for the nonprofit coalition of insurers and consumer groups. "When you start adding in the lost productivity of businesses, the lost life savings of individuals and the cost to investigate and prosecute, the total figure is likely much higher."
From suspicious tainted-food claims to phony slip-and-falls, faked deaths to real murder, here are eight of the most desperate and devious insurance frauds from the coalition's Insurance Fraud Hall of Shame.
Behold the havoc wrought by insurance fraud on lives, property -- and ultimately your premiums.


Credit: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/8-extreme-cases-of-insurance-fraud-1.aspx

Doctors told to avoid prescribing opiates for chronic pain

The CDC's recommendations are nonbinding, but they're the broadest measure in place regarding opioid medications.Video provided by Newsy Newslook
 14948 550LINKEDIN 603COMMENTMORE
The nation's top federal health agency urged doctors to avoid prescribing powerful opiate painkillers for patients with chronic pain, saying the risks from such drugs far outweigh the benefits for most people.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in its first ever guidelines for dispensing the morphine-like, addictive drugs, such as Vicodin and OxyContin, said it took the action Tuesday to combat the nation's deadly prescription painkiller epidemic.
The guidelines carve out an exception for patients receiving cancer treatment or end-of-life care. When doctors determine that such drugs are necessary in other situations, the CDC advises doctors prescribe the lowest possible dose for the shortest amount of time.
About 40 Americans die each day from overdosing on prescription painkillers, according to the CDC. In 2013, an estimated 1.9 million people abused or were dependent on prescription opiates.
"We know of no other medication routinely used for a nonfatal condition that kills patients so frequently," said CDC director Thomas Frieden. "We hope to see fewer deaths from opiates. That's the bottom line. These are really dangerous medications that carry the risk of addiction and death."
The CDC directed the guidelines to primary care physicians, who prescribe nearly half of opiates. Doctors aren't legally obligated to follow the recommendations, which are intended for adult patients, but such directives often have influence.
The CDC hopes the guidelines will help doctors determine when to begin or continue opiates for chronic pain, which type of painkiller to choose, how long to administer the drugs and how to weigh their risks.
Andrew Kolodny, executive director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, called the recommendations a "game changer" that doctors are likely to follow.
"For the first time, the federal government is communicating clearly that the widespread practice of treating common pain conditions with long-term opioids is inappropriate," Kolodny said. "The CDC is making it perfectly clear that medical practice needs to change because we’re harming pain patients and fueling a public health crisis."
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network President Chris Hansen criticized the move for disregarding the important role of pain management for cancer survivors "who experience severe pain that limits their quality of life."
"Pain does not end when an individual completes treatment," he said in a statement. "Most often, cancer patients deal with lasting effects from their disease or treatment including pain for a significant period of time or indefinitely."
Many prescription opiates on the market are as addictive as heroin, and poorly control chronic pain, Frieden said. Doctors should use therapies other than opiates first, including exercise or non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, such as aspirin or ibuprofen, he said.
When the benefits of prescription opiates outweigh the risks, doctors should talk to patients about their treatment goals and when they will stop using the drugs. Due to a high risk of overdose, physicians should avoid prescribing opiates at the same time as benzodiazepines, such as anti-anxiety drugs Valium and Xanax. Doctors also should prescribe immediate-release opiates, rather than extended-relief tablets that are more likely to be abused.
Credit: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/15/cdc-issues-new-guidelines-opiate-prescribing-reduce-abuse-overdoses/81809704/

Contact Simply Career

Name

Email *

Message *