10 things to know today

Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and the stories that will be talked about Wednesday:
AP Wire
Mar 19, 2014

1. WHY SOME OF TOP CANCER CENTERS ARE OFF-LIMITS TO AMERICANS

An AP survey finds that many of the best hospitals in the U.S. are not accepting new insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act.

2. MALAYSIAN PLANE MAY NEVER BE FOUND

Experts and families face grim but distant possibility that the Boeing 777, which has been the subject of an international search for 10 days, could be lost forever.

3. HOW PUTIN IS REDRAWING RUSSIA'S MAP

The Russian president declared Crimea part of his country two days after its voters chose to split from Ukraine.

4. TWO KILLED IN SEATTLE NEWS CHOPPER CRASH

A pilot and a news photographer were killed in the accident near the Space Needle.

5. REPORT SAYS LA AIRPORT WAS ILL-PREPARED FOR CRISIS

The findings criticized the emergency response to the fatal shooting in November, citing communication problems and technology lapses.

6. LEAK FOUND IN GAS MAIN AT NYC BLAST SITE

Federal investigators are not yet sure whether the leakage was behind the explosion that killed 8 people and leveled two buildings.

7. URUGUAY'S PRESIDENT IS BIG ABROAD, BUT NOT SO POPULAR AT HOME

The leader, known to many as "Pepe," is facing growing criticism over lack of improvement in education, security and environmental issues.

8. FEDERAL RESERVE LEADER HAS GOOD COMPANY AT HOME

Janet Yellen, the first woman to lead the nation's central bank, has forged an intellectual partnership with her Nobel-winning economist husband of 35 years, George Akerlof.

9. ROLLING STONES CANCEL TOUR DATES OVER L'WREN SCOTT'S DEATH

Mick Jagger, the band's frontman, said he is struggling to understand why his companion may have taken her own life.

10. MICHELLE OBAMA FACES BIG PERSONNEL DECISION

The White House pastry chef — dubbed "The Crust Master" by the president — has announced he is leaving after seven years in the job.

Comments

Vladtheimp

#3. Sunday, former Ambassador John Bolton: "“We sent Secretary of State John Kerry to London to negotiate with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov – that’s like sending a cupcake to negotiate with a steak knife.”

Monday, John Kerry: Talk of Sanctions Against Russia Not a "Threat," "Nothing Personal" Against Putin

We are SO screwed worldwide by THE Obama/Hillary/Kerry "Smart Diplomacy"!

Lanivan

HOW screwed are we? Gee, I've missed you....

At least John, "I am the Walrus" Bolton didn't refer to Obama as "limp-wristed", as is his usual taunt. Bolton likes men to be men - you know, rush into wars based on lies, that will cost Trillions, spiral the Nation into a brutal recession, kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people, all to no avail because the reality, recognized by any sane, rational person, is that the US can not and should not be nation-building via wars.

John Bolton, a loose cannon with a hair trigger and a lousy sense of aim, who believes war is the answer to the problems in the US, is the reason Putin thinks he has a chance to pounce. Putin remembers how weak the Soviet Union was after 14 years of fruitless war in Afghanistan, and recognizes that same vulnerability in the US - suffering from a huge war debt, military exhaustion, a brutal recession caused in part by the wars, and an American public that in poll after poll opposes the Iraq War, and doesn't want the US to enter into another s**t storm again anytime soon.

John Bolton is a monster (sorry to all the other monsters out there who are sure to resent the comparison) with a big mouth, a lily-livered chicken war hawk homophobe who managed to avoid military duty himself, as did many war hawk neo-con conservatives, but doesn't think twice about sending US soldiers to war.

Vladtheimp

Typical - Lash out at an accomplished and respected diplomat to try and cover for the myriad foreign policy bungles and debacles of Obama/Hillary/Kerry. There is no Obama failure you can acknowledge, unless you find a fantasy way to blame Bush, Cheney, or the Koch Brothers. That's just sad for you.

Be careful, calling someone a "Monster" can be hazardous to your health (After ‘Monster’ Remark, Aide to Obama Resigns) http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.c...

And speaking of manly men, http://www.city-data.com/forum/a...

Vladtheimp

Since you decided to slander John Bolton, I note that the arrogance and hypocrisy of liberals in general, and liberal women in particular, is breathtaking in its expanse. Men are not permitted to comment on so-called "womens' issues" because we don't have the plumbing or don't face the challenges women do. Yet women of a certain age have no problem castigating men for their actions during the Vietnam War, when men, and only men, were subject to the draft and sent to fight for their country and its women. Gasp! Yea, I went there.

Did you know that John Bolton was a contemporary of Bill Clinton at Yale Law School? Did you know that Bolton joined the National Guard, which at the time was an alternative to the draft, and did not guarantee one would not be sent to Vietnam? Compare that with what the Philanderer and Perjurer in Chief, William Jefferson Clinton, did to avoid the draft. In case you are not familiar with his lies and evasions and political maneuvering, you can read about it here: http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-...

And it's interesting that you characterize John Bolton as "a lily-livered chicken war hawk ... who managed to avoid military duty himself, as did many war hawk neo-con conservatives, but doesn't think twice about sending US soldiers to war. " To the best of my knowledge, although I admit I am not as informed as you, John Bolton didn't have the power to "send U.S. soldiers to war" while the other "lily-livered chicken war hawk" who "managed to avoid military duty himself," Slick Willie Clinton, not only had the authority but used it, in conjunction with that other lily-livered chicken war hawk who managed to avoid military duty (Madeleine Albright) - to insert American forces into Yugoslavia (without obtaining Congressional authorization) and in bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan to divert attention from his sexual relationship and harassment of White House intern Monica Lewinsky (not to mention raining Cruise Missiles on Afghanistan killing many innocents. Funny how Lewinsky's life was ruined but Slick Willy is still loved and revered by liberals, especially liberal women - go figure.

If you really believe John Bolton is a homophobe because he called Barack Obama's policy limp-wristed, I have a limp wrist for ya http://fellowshipofminds.files.w...

Lanivan

This is in reply to both your comments. I was easy on John Bolton. John Bolton is an embarrassment to his country, and is hardly lauded or respected by his peers, other than the other lily-livered chicken hawks who comprise the American Enterprise Institute, which, by the way, employs both men and women. He and his crony's Cheney (both of them), Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol, and Wolfowitz, just to name a few, should be hung by their toes for the perhaps irreparable harm they did to this country. There is nothing - and I do mean nothing - you could ever say, about me or to me, to assuage my disgust and utter disdain for that team of disgraceful nitwits. And, in addition, I hold them in lower regard than even Bush. Or the Koch Bros.

I note that was it just a week ago you wrote "big whoop" upon replying to my praise for someone's Yale credentials? Yes - yes you did, and I now quote you when you bring up John Bolton's Yale credentials - "big whoop".

Now, all this aggression could have been avoided had you only quoted a real man - let's say Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Now HE was a UN ambassador extraordinaire, and a true patriotic American. He knew war, having served in combat, and still was man enough to say, "[The UN] is created to prevent you from going to hell. It isn't created to take you to heaven."

None of this has much if anything to do with Obama. The US is not going to invade Russia over the Crimea, for the love of God. John Bolton's go-to involuntary solution is to employ the most aggressive approach possible, that is - War and lots of it. Don't walk back John Bolton's statements for him.

Lewinsky's life ruined? Well, that depends. I wonder if Monica thinks so. I don't know Monica, or President Clinton, for that matter, but I would bet you Monica was a willing accomplice in the seduction. Sorry - Bill did and still does have that affect on many women of all political persuasions....:(

Vladtheimp

1. John Bolton never suggested going to war over Crimea - he suggested much stronger sanctions, including freezing all assets; stopping banking business and stopping American and European air flights to Russia, than the limp-wristed Obama sanctions;

2. I brought up Bolton's Yale Law School background to show that he and Slick Willy both ended up there after having been classified 1-A, and the difference between how Bolton and Der Slickster avoided service in Vietnam;

3. Interesting you would lionize Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., a rich Republican who supported the assassination of Diem in Vietnam and was virulently anti-communist. Today he would be assailed by the democrats who have adopted socialism the precursor of communism, as their political philosophy - see Obamacare.

4. This has everything to do with Obama, who embarked on his world apologize for America tour, was outfoxed by Putin on Syria after drawing his ill-advised and rhetorical "line in the sand;" supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt until they were thrown out by popular demand; supported the Palestinians over our only ally in the region, Israel; ousted Muammar Gaddafi leading to Benghazi and the Islam-o-fascists taking over the country; weakened sanctions against the nuclear weaponization of Iran; and generally acted like the weak sister that he is. Putin and other real world leaders can smell weakness, and act on it.

5. Glad to hear that you are willing to overlook sexual harassment in the workplace based on the relative power of the participants (something I couldn't dismiss so easily in my prior professional life)and blame the victim. Of course, if I adopted your view of sexual harassment based on the attractiveness of the harasser (I guess-can't put myself in your undies), I guess I could accept being sexually harassed by Julia Roberts.)

Lanivan

1. John Bolton didn't have to say it - he implied it, and he is a laughingstock. You know the joke about the man who calls other men limp wristed? Turns out he has a limp....oh never mind. Just suffice it to say I'd not use that term on a regular basis, if I were you.

2. It's just that there is such an overwhelming preponderance of conservative neo-cons who are overwhelmingly hawkish, love tough talk and irresponsible threats, and seem to have no sense of history, both World and US. Yet none of them ever served in combat, that I've been able to ascertain. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

3. Of course you would have to find fault with Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. When comparing a man of his stature, experience, military service, and work as a UN Ambassador (as well as Ambassador to several countries) to John Bolton, well! A wasted effort on your part.

4. I think it's very wrong of you to take Putin's side, support his actions inferring he is strong, and refer to him as a "real" world leader. And yet you complained bitterly about Obama's drone attacks on Al Qaeda. The oscillations!

5. That's right - save the best for last. I wasn't overlooking sexual harassment in the workplace, I just don't think the Bill/Monica thing was necessarily harassment (with either of them). Let's face it: Bill Clinton = good. John Bolton = bad, if you catch my drift. It's just the way of the world. If I'm reading you correctly, you appear to be complaining (bragging) that you were the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace?? Oh my, excuse me while I swoon.

Lanivan
Tri-cities realist

Seems like your agreeing with Vlad that Obama's sanctions are weak.

Wingmaster

Vlad, great to see you still fight the good fight keeping the Libs on their heels. Lan....Hi, (shaking my head laughing) still Lib, I mean, Centrist as ever I see.

Lanivan

Wing. Your name is a sight for sore eyes. Please don't just drop in and say hi - settle in and stay awhile. Surely you've come to your senses over your long absence! 0*-)

Those Stand Your Ground Laws.....ggrrrr.....

Tri-cities realist

#10 Really??? This makes the top 10?

Lanivan

Tri-cities ideali...realist, this is dedicated to you. You're welcome....

"The explosion in secret financing of political advertising has turned tax-exempt nonprofit organizations into the weapon of choice for those who want to influence elections without leaving fingerprints.

Campaign spending by these groups, which do not disclose donors, has grown from a modest $5.8 million in the 2003-4 election cycle to $310.8 million in 2011-2012, an increase of more than 5000 percent, with further growth expected in 2014 and 2016.

Most of the money raised from undisclosed contributors flows through nonprofits claiming tax-exempt status under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, a frequent subject of this column. The most common tax-exempt organizations are 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups, although there is also substantial political cash channeled through 501(c)(6) groups, which are nonprofit trade associations like the United States Chamber of Commerce.

In partisan terms, the growth of secrecy in campaign finance has been driven by the political right, as shown in the graphic at Figure 2. Of the $310.8 million in total political spending by nondisclosing groups in 2011-12, $265.2 million, or 85.5 percent, was spent by conservative, pro-Republican organizations (red in the pie chart), and $10.9 million, or 11.2 percent, was spent by liberal, pro-Democratic organizations (blue in the chart). [Those bad IRS people who targeted conservative groups when applying for 501(3)C tax-exempt status = they didn't have a sorry leg to stand on!!]

Of the top 10 nondisclosing spenders in the 2011-12 cycle, nine were conservative, pro-Republican groups, and one was a liberal, pro-Democratic group, the League of Conservation Voters, at number eight on the list. And so, so much more.....this is a must-read for those "Don't worry - be happy" types like you. Just for kicks, be sure and scroll down to the "Koch Bros Network".....whheeeee!! Those dudes rock - I dare you to find another maze as labyrithian from the liberals!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/1...

Barry Soetoro

You made me read all the way to the bottom before I found "Koch Bros". Well played.

Lanivan

Barry - There are three things you can count on: 1.) Death, 2.) Taxes, and, 3.) Whenever Lanivan writes about the deplorable influence of dark money and the purchasing of our government officials and the influencing of public policy, the words "Koch Bros" will appear.

Barry Soetoro

Yeah I've pretty much figured that out - which is why I'm so disappointed in myself for reading it in it's entirety - and so goes the last of my supply of Short's Huma Lupa to help take the edge off my misery. Again, well-played my friend... *clink*

Lanivan

Every time I read Short's Huma Lupa, I have an irrepressible urge to get out my hula hoop. Although It is quite difficult to drink when gyrating....but not one to let a little thing like that stop me..... here goes! Hipahipa!....*clink*

Tri-cities realist

Not sure how I became a Koch brother's defender in your mind, frankly I don't really care what they do with their money as long as it's legal.

I agree in general with Scalia, I am in favor of disclosure.

Funny how the opinion of John Paul Stevens supports anonymity. Do you disagree with his opinion? Be careful, it might be the first time you criticize a non-republican or non-conservative.

Lanivan

An expected disingenuous response. You seem to fail to understand (intentionally?) what I oppose. This really isn't so much a conservative/liberal thing. It's just that the Koch Bros, and a host of other conservative groups, as the article clearly exposes, have insidiously come out as the leader of the dark money, highly-networked, hand in every pot, maze of tax-exempt groups throughout the US that are established solely to buy politicians, elections, and influence government policy to their self-interest. It has always been thus, but, again, as the article shows, the number and degree of influences on our political system through money - lots and lots of money - has exploded in the last decade, and in particular, since the passing of Citizens United.

They are counting on members of the populace to respond as you do: with indifference and an eroding sense of what this country was built on - integrity, a more evenly divided balance of power between the power of the people and the power of the rich, and a recognition that a healthy nation is one where there is a strong, educated, and savvy middle class.

History teaches us that there will not be a happy ending to this story. May God have mercy on our souls.

Tri-cities realist

I was not disingenuous at all, there you go again! I stated I support disclosure, then asked whether you agree with a Justice's opinion that favors anonymity, thanks for not answering the question.

The Koch's (and liberal groups as well) are just responding according to the SCOTUS ruling, while you may not agree with the ruling, can you blame them for taking full advantage?

And if this is not a conservative/liberal thing, please show your consistency and devote some time to decrying all of the liberal dark money that is being spent. Until then you are just being hypocritical.

Lanivan

I see - the problem is not with your disingenuousness, but that you apparently didn't read either my link or comments.

"In partisan terms, the growth of secrecy in campaign finance has been driven by the political right, as shown in the graphic at Figure 2. Of the $310.8 million in total political spending by nondisclosing groups in 2011-12, $265.2 million, or 85.5 percent, was spent by conservative, pro-Republican organizations (red in the pie chart), and $10.9 million, or 11.2 percent, was spent by liberal, pro-Democratic organizations (blue in the chart)".

Please read the nytimes.com link provided above, and study the graphic at figure 2.

You will then have your answer as to why I choose to write about the worst offenders with the finite time allotment I have to spend. Apparently what I consider to be an efficient use of time is being hypocritical to you - someone who rarely provides links or substantiation to your arguments, but is quick to pick apart the comments of others through the disingenuous cherry-picking and the taking of statements out of context.

dhbreezy1234

What?

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.