Egypt braces for day of rival rallies

News 12 ConnecticutEgypt braces for day of rival ralliesNews 12 ConnecticutPhoto credit: AP | Opponents of ousted President Mohammed Morsi carry their injured friend who was wounded during clashes with Morsi supporters, in Cairo, Egypt, Monday, July 22, 2013. Several hundred Morsi supporters tried to march toward the U.S ...

Income Inequality Worsens: Ranks Of Millionaires Swell As Poor Tread Water

The world's richest 300 people control more wealth than the poorest 3 billion, and the gap continues to grow, according to the latest report issued last month by the Capgemini wealth consultancy and the Royal Bank of Canada.

Data in the World Wealth Report 2013 shows that millionaires across the world increased their holdings by 10 percent in 2012, reaching a record high of $46.2 trillion. One million people joined the global "high net worth individual" population, which jumped to 12 million, an increase of 9 percent over the last year. A high net worth individual is defined as someone with "investable assets of $1 million or more, excluding primary residence, collectibles, consumables, and consumer durables."

But the growing population in the millionaires club doesn't indicate that the wealth is being spread more evenly - quite the contrary.

Earlier this year, Oxfam published a report showing that the wealthiest 300 people now control more wealth than the poorest 3 billion people across the world.

"We wanted to do more than just illustrate the brutal extent of inequality; we also wanted to demonstrate that it has been getting progressively worse," Oxfam reported.

"The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process," researchers found.

What are the conditions creating this growing gap? Tax avoidance for high-income individuals and corporations continues to be a major issue depriving developing countries of much-needed funds for developing infrastructure, jobs and education.

Citing data from the Oxfam report, Jason Hickel, a professor at the London School of Economics, reports that corporations are taking roughly $900 billion out of developing countries each year through a tax avoidance scheme called "trade mispricing."

Here's how it works: By registering a company in a country with favorable tax laws, a company can benefit from the cheap labor and resources of a developing country while putting little or no tax revenue back into the system.

The U.S. wealth gap may not be as bad as China, South Africa or India, but the growing inequality has become much worse in the years leading up to the recession of 2007-2009, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, income for the top 1 percent in the U.S. has increased by 275 percent over the past 30 years, while income growth for the rest of Americans has remained stagnant.

The Economic Policy Institute claims that from 1979-2007, roughly 30 percent of the expansion of the after-tax income gap was due to tax and budget policies becoming less redistributive.

Things have gotten even worse after the recession, during the so-called years of "recovery" when millions of Americans remain out of work and most Americans have lost wealth. According a 2013 Pew Research Center analysis of Census data, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7 percent of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28 percent from 2009-2011 while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93 percent actually dropped by 4 percent over the same period.

Print This Story

Lawsuit: Arizona college suspended student because she wanted English

A nursing student at Pima Community College (PCC) has filed a lawsuit claiming that she was illegally suspended after she complained that her classmates were speaking in Spanish and orally translating English to Spanish so excessively that she was failing to learn.

In early April, the student, Terri Bennett, formally requested a rule limiting classroom discussion to English. Nursing program director David Kutzler allegedly responded by called her a "bigot and a bitch," reports Courthouse News Service.

Kutzler allegedly charged that Bennett was "discriminating against Mexican-Americans" and threatened to report her complaint as a violation of the school's policies against discriminatory behavior and harassment.

"You do not want to go down that road," he said, according to the filing.

Bennett, 50, recalls leaving the meeting in distress and in tears.

A second meeting two days later involved Bennett, Kutzler and three more PCC staffers. The public school officials allegedly told Bennett that she would "not get a job" because of her desire to limit class discussion to English. She claims they said she should "seek counseling" and that she might have a learning disability.

Kutzler also allegedly produced an anonymous evaluation form that Bennett had filled out, also suggesting a "no Spanish in the classroom" rule.

Later in April, Bennett received critical feedback from a teacher-for the first time, she maintains. The critique chastised Bennett for "ineffective communication skills."

Then, on April 22, Bennett received a suspension letter from the state-owned school. The charges levied against her included discrimination, "stalking" and "bullying." She also allegedly argued with a professor about the correct answer to a test question.

Her indefinite suspension was to last "until she receives counseling to improve her communication style and to learn to be less abrasive," the lawsuit states.

"Six armed" campus security officers promptly escorted her off PCC's Desert Vista campus. The officers then allegedly followed her several miles down the road to Interstate 10.

Bennett sued the community college and its boards of directors in an Arizona state court under several causes of action including harassment, breach of contract, retaliation, discrimination and violations of the Arizona Constitution. The college and its board of governors are the only defendants.

Article 28 of Arizona's state constitution establishes English as "the official language of the state." Section 3 states: "A person shall not be discriminated against or penalized in any way because the person uses or attempts to use English in public or private communication."

Professor backs statement that God is racist, says 'I have tenure. I can't get ...

Daily Caller News Foundation

Anthea Butler, the Ivy League religious studies professor who called God a white racist after the Trayvon Martin verdict last week, doubled down on her statement and denounced the conservative media outlets that criticized her.

Butler, an associate professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote a blog post for Religious Dispatches last week arguing that most Americans worship a "white racist god with a problem" who is "carrying a gun and stalking young black men."

"As a historian of American and African-American religion, I know that the Trayvon Martin moment is just one moment in a history of racism in America that, in large part, has its underpinnings in Christianity and its history," she wrote.

Conservative commentators criticized these remarks, but Butler hit back hard recently during a panel discussion at the Harlem Book Fair.

"I wrote an op-ed in the religion dispatches magazine this week about America's racist god," she said. "I got attacked by the right. I got attacked by Fox, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh - I'm saying all you all's names out loud - Daily Caller."

She said that the pundits at these media outlets - including The Daily Caller - a different god than the biblical Christian God.

"I was coming after their god," she said. "I was not coming after the God of the scriptures, the God that we know, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I was coming after the god they worship, Mammon; the god they worship, racism; the god they worship, white supremacy."

Butler also expressed gratitude to her tenure status at UPenn, which protects her from being fired no matter how many controversial statements she makes.

"Thank God I got a great institution that takes care of me," she said. "I have tenure. I can't get fired."

Rush Limbaugh did not take kindly to Butler's assertion that his God was not the biblical one.

"All we did was react to what this professor said in her rage and her anger," he said on his radio show. "But then she flips everybody off: you can't do anything about it because I have tenure. Anyway, I don't know how much you spend to send your kids to this school, but it's a waste of money if your kid's taking a course taught by this woman."

Follow Robby on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Jay Z will boycott Florida after he makes millions of dollars performing in ...

Jay Z announced that he will join Stevie Wonder, Madonna and other musicians boycotting the state of Florida in the wake of the George Zimmerman trial.

Jay Z's boycott, however, will being after he makes millions of dollars for performing with Justin Timberlake in Florida.

The pair are still scheduled to stop in Miami for their "Legends of the Summer Tour" on Aug. 16, Florida's Post Newsweek reports.

A number of musicians, including Usher, Rod Stewart and Kanye West, have said that they will not perform in the 20 states that have "stand your ground" laws after Zimmerman's acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin.

Despite earlier reports, Mother Jones writes that neither Rihanna nor the Rolling Stones have plans to boycott those states because, you know, money.

Follow Taylor on Twitter

Boehner snaps at reporter over immigration question

Speaker of the House John Boehner snapped at a reporter Tuesday when the journalist accused the lawmaker of playing no substantial role in the immigration debate on Capitol Hill.

During a weekly House GOP press availability, the Ohio Republican appeared annoyed when he interrupted a reporter who asserted as fact that Boehner has taken a "hands off approach on immigration."

"Woah, woah, woah, woah, stop," Boehner said, not letting the reporter finish the question. "Just stop."

"Let's get back to the premise of the question," he said. "Nobody has spent more time trying to fix a broken immigration system than I have."

Continuing, Boehner said: "I talked about it the day after the election. And I've talked about it a hundred times since. While some may disagree about how we're going about fixing the broken immigration system, it's been a big goal of mine."

While the Senate passed the Gang of 8 immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, Boehner says the bill is too big and says he won't bring it to a vote in the House. But he has dodged questions about his personal views on a pathway to citizenship, saying his role in Congress is to facilitate discussion of the issue among legislators.

"We believe that a common sense, step-by-step approach to addressing this problem makes a lot more sense than one big massive comprehensive bill," he said.

Desperate Homophobes Tell Women Gay Rights Will Rob Them Of Husbands

By Amanda MarcotteMonday, July 22, 2013 13:24 EDT

"The Supreme Court overturned DOMA? I'm finally free to dump this lady and get on Grindr!," Said no man ever.

Marriage equality opponents are getting desperate, desperate enough to use the "your spouse is going to abandon you!" tactic to try to turn people against same sex marriage. No, seriously, NOM and the Heritage Foundation are trying to argue that allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow produce more single mothers.

But how can we say that fathers are essential, if policy redefines marriage to make fathers optional?

"[R]edefining marriage further distances marriage from the needs of children and denies the importance of mothers and fathers. Redefining marriage rejects as a matter of policy the ideal that children need a mother and a father," explains Heritage's Ryan T. Anderson. "Redefining marriage diminishes the social pressures for husbands to remain with their wives and children, and for men and women to marry before having children," he continues.

The entire thing is quite a remarkable attempt at trying to baffle people with bullshit. They have a chart that shows that your chances of living in poverty are a lot higher if you're a single parent, as if that really has anything to do with married gay couples, who by definition are two separate individuals together and not single.

I've long not completely understood why the religious right thinks bringing up the specter of unmarried mothers will somehow convince people that the solution is to ban marriage for the small percent of unmarried mothers who are in same-sex partnerships. The argument has always been some convoluted Martian logic, which you can see reproduced up there, which is that somehow the existence of same-sex marriage will cause people to think that you don't have to be in a heterosexual marriage to have kids and so they'll go buck wild, spreading children all over the place without taking care of them or whatever. Never mind that people already figured that out, and that the rise of single motherhood dates to back before most people had even heard of the concept of gay marriage. I truly did not get it.

But Zack Ford zeroes in specifically on the claim that marriage equality "diminishes the social pressures for husbands to remain with their wives and children", and suggests that there's an argument that's being hinted at but not stated directly: That your husband is going to use you for making children and then go off and marry a man. He notes that there's a long trend in the anti-gay community of trying to conflate single mothers with lesbian-headed households, and this is just an extension of that.

It's amazing how conservatives just assume everyone shares their shockingly misogynist worldview, particularly their assumption that no man would ever openly choose to be with a woman unless he had no other choice. (And vice versa, with the fear that same-sex marriage is giving women "permission" not to be married at all.) These kinds of arguments, no matter how much they try to confuse you by being obtuse and arguing everything through insinuation, never work unless you buy the premise that men and women will not be with each other unless they're forced to. You really do start to wonder if they think that most currently straight people are going to turn gay now that gay marriage is an option.

In the real world, of course, the growing social acceptance of gay people actually reduces the number of straight marriages that are blown up by one spouse choosing to live as gay. It's homophobia that causes people to get married, have kids, and struggle for years before the pressure of living a lie causes them to come out, divorce their spouse, and live as a gay person. Nowadays, you can come out in your teens-often earlier!-long before there's pressure to start dating, much less marry a person of the opposite sex.

This isn't just conjecture, but is backed up by the statistics. In red states, where there's more overt homophobia, there are a lot more same-sex couples raising children. That's because, despite gay couples adopting or having kids together, most gay parents still got their kids during a closeted period in their life.

For instance, "a big chunk of them are people who had children young, with opposite-sex partners, before they came out," Gates said. After coming out, they raised those children with a partner of the same sex, he explained.

That may be one reason that in some more conservative places not known for celebrating gays and lesbians, a striking percentage of same-sex couples are rearing children, Gates said. Among states, Mississippi has the highest percentage of gay or lesbian couples raising children - 26% - his analysis of census data found.

Though Salt Lake City has a high percentage of gay couples raising children, the actual number is still much smaller than in coastal hubs such as New York or Los Angeles, the data show.

The only way you could possibly think that legalizing gay marriage will make this more prevalent is if you think that huge percentages of currently straight couples will break up and go into same-sex marriages the second they get a chance. It's not uncommon for the religious right to raise the specter, particularly to women, that no one will want to be married to them if X happens. Threatening women with male infidelity or with the fear that men will reject marriage if there's other options available is a long-standing argument against women's sexual liberation, so it's not surprising that the anti-gay arguments are basically an extremely strained attempt to do the same thing.

Like Raw Story on Facebook

Report: 'Gasland' director made false breast cancer claims

Daily Caller News Foundation

Scientists told EgyptbracesforviolenceasMorsisupport.blogspot.com that environmentalists may be twisting the facts when it comes to their criticism of hydraulic fracturing.

One of the most controversial claims against fracking is that it has caused breast cancer rates to spike in North Texas Barnett Shale, where oil and gas companies have been drilling for about a decade.

Josh Fox, environmentalist and maker of the anti-fracking "Gasland" series, argued in a letter sent to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that breast cancer rates spiked in an area of the Barnett Shale where extensive drilling is taking place.

"In Texas, as throughout the United States, cancer rates fell," Fox tells viewers in a creepy voice in his short film "The Sky is Pink." "Except in one place: in the Barnett Shale. The five counties where there was the most drilling saw a rise in breast cancer throughout the counties."

Simon Craddock Lee, a professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, called Fox's claims "a classic case of the ecological fallacy." It is false to suggest that breast cancer is linked to just one factor when things like diet, lifestyle and access to health care are also factors.

However, there has been no such spike in breast cancer rates, according to researchers.

The AP notes: "David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike supposedly occurred. ... And Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major cancer advocacy group based in Dallas, said it sees no evidence of a spike, either."

Fox remained adamant that his claim was correct, responding to the AP by citing a Centers for Disease Control press release and a newspaper article, neither of which appeared to support his contention.

In fact, the story that Fox cited noted that while "local breast cancer rates are up, they are still below the national average."

The AP notes: "When Fox was told that Texas cancer researchers said rates didn't increase, he replied in an email that the claim of unusually high breast cancer rates was 'widely reported' and said there is 'more than enough evidence to warrant much deeper study.'"

This is not the only time Fox has been criticized for misleading viewers.

One scene in his most recent film "Gasland II" showed a man being able to light to contents of his hose on fire, but a Texas court recently found that this was a hoax done at the behest of a Texas environmental activist who was engaged in a prolonged battle with an oil and gas company.

"This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning," the court ruled last year.

Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals into cracks in rock formations to widen them and allow more oil and gas to escape, increasing the amounts that can be recovered. The process occurs at about 8,000 feet below ground, and thousands of feet below groundwater sources.

Environmentalists argue that chemicals from fracking seep up through the ground and can contaminate water supplies. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to find evidence of groundwater contamination linked to fracking and a recent Energy Department study found no evidence of fracking contaminating drinking water in western Pennsylvania.

Follow Michael on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Energy Department: Fracking doesn't contaminate groundwater

Daily Caller News Foundation

A landmark federal study found no evidence that hydraulic fracturing - better known as fracking - contaminated drinking water in western Pennsylvania, the Energy Department told EgyptbracesforviolenceasMorsisupport.blogspot.com.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh monitored wells for a year by injecting special tracers into fracking fluid to see whether any chemicals migrated up towards drinking water. Researchers found that the fracking fluid stayed nearly a mile below drinking water supplies.

"This is good news," said Duke University scientist Rob Jackson, but warned that a single study does not prove fracking can't ever pollute since industry drilling practices vary widely throughout Pennsylvania and the country.

These are only preliminary results of an ongoing study, but so far it supports the industry's argument that fracking can be done safely.

Fracking involves injecting fluids into cracks in rock formations to widen them and allow more oil and gas to escape, increasing the amounts that can be recovered. The process occurs at about 8,000 feet below ground.

Environmentalists opposed to fracking claim that it can contaminate groundwater sources and releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but so far, these claims are largely unfounded.

The AP also notes: "While the lack of contamination is encouraging, Jackson said he wondered whether the unidentified drilling company might have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with the research site, since it was being watched."

Jackson also noted that researchers at Duke have conducted numerous fracking studies with mixed results, though none of them have found chemical contamination in water supplies. However, there was some evidence that natural gas escaped some wells in northeastern Pennsylvania.

The Environmental Protection Agency has also failed to find evidence of drinking water contamination in three separate studies. The agency is currently in the process of conducting a larger national study that will be done in 2016.

Follow Michael on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Major victory for illegal immigrant students in Michigan

Daily Caller News Foundation

The regents of the University of Michigan (UM) granted a hefty tuition discount to students who are in the country illegally.

The vote to establish in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants took place on Thursday, following months of discussion over the issue. The two Republican members of the Board of Regents voted against the measure.

Under the old tuition policy, illegal immigrants living in the state of Michigan were automatically considered out-of-state students. Now all residents of Michigan, regardless of whether they lawfully entered the U.S., will enjoy in-state tuition rates.

The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition is significant: Students who lack residency in the state of Michigan pay about $40,000 a year for tuition at UM, while in-state students pay just $13,000.

There are an estimated 29,000 college-age immigrants living in Michigan illegally.

Dan Morales, a UM sophomore and spokesman for the Coalition for Tuition Equality (CTE), praised the decision while bemoaning the lack of financial aid available to illegal immigrants. CTE will continue to pressure the university to find more ways to lower the cost of education for undocumented students, he said.

"In-state tuition is only one step to creating truly equal access to higher education for these students," he said in a statement to The Michigan Daily.

Regent Andrea Fischer Newman, who voted no, expressed concern that the new policy violates federal laws against providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

"I'm concerned about whether this is appropriate under federal law and believe this type of national issue should be resolved at the federal level, although I am supportive of the expansion of in-state tuition for veterans who have served our nation," she said in a statement.

The new policy also extends in-state tuition to all military veterans, regardless of residency.

Follow Robby on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Craigslist mom seeks hottie to take Harvard

Everybody knows that Craigslist is the best place in the world to find random, possibly diseased sex partners and crappy furniture nobody wants.

Naturally, then, a Philadelphia woman who says she wants to find a special female to deflower her "extremely smart but socially awkward" 18-year-old son knew exactly where to turn: the "casual encounters" section of Philly's Craigslist personals.

The young man is allegedly going to Harvard, you see, and his mother says she wants him to be sexually ready when he arrives in Cambridge. Because what kind of mother wouldn't be worried sick about that?

"This is going to sound strange but my son is a senior in High School and I want to help him," the concerned mother writes in the ad placed on July 16 12:49 p.m. Eastern time. The ad is titled "Sugar Baby for my Son - m4w - 18 (Philly)."

It's not clear what this kid is doing still in high school in the middle of July.

He "has never had a girl friend," she explains. She is "sure he's a virgin." He is - or was - also a member of the varsity cross country team at an undisclosed high school. He is "very handsome and extremely fit... There's almost zero body fat on him."

The helpful mother says she wants "to find a cute young girl to date him and turn him from high school nerd to cool college kid."

Mom's plan is simple: "I'll buy 4 tickets to some great concert coming up and give two to my son and 2 to you," she schemes. "Ask him to take you somewhere after and ditch your friends. Then you seduce him and take his virginity. Keep dating him (and showing him different sex positions) til he goes to college and then let him go gently so he'll have the confidence to date other girls once he's there."

The reward for participating in this devious mom's machinations - in addition to the all the satisfaction it will bring, of course - will apparently be cash and an automobile.

"In return I'll make your financial issues disappear," she promises, with an added wink. "Please put your favorite type of car in the subject, to show that you're real. Thanks!"

Follow Eric on Twitter and send casual sex ad-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.

Rep. James Clyburn dons a hoodie at Trayvon Martin rally

South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn rallied for slain teen Trayvon Martin on the steps of the South Carolina State House Saturday wearing a hoodie, according to WLTX reporter Jasmine Styles.

Congressman Clyburn speaking on Trayvon Martin w/ his hoodie up pic.twitter.com/T4ezEa9tBB

- Jasmine Styles (@JStylesWLTX) July 20, 2013

The hooded sweatshirt, or hoodie, has become a symbol of support for Martin who was wearing one on the night he was shot and killed by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was acquitted of murder charges by a jury last weekend.

Thursday, Clyburn, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke about his and the CBC's disappointment in the verdict with MSNBC.

"We're very disappointed in the verdict, and more disappointed in some of the reactions we've read from some of the jurors. It just seems as if something about this entire process is just disconcerting to us," he said.

"So we are looking at the verdict as well as other thing surrounding it, and trying to figure out whether or not this whole so-called Stand Your Ground legislation or law can be dealt with in such a way to prevent this kind of the thing from happening. And we hope that we can," he added

The CBC is currently readying legislation in response to Zimmerman's acquittal.

Last March, Illinois Democrat Rep. Bobby Rush was chastised for violating chamber rules when he wore a hoodie during a speech on the House floor.

"Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker," Rush said, just before pulling up his hood. "Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum."

Martin supporters are expected to rally and conduct vigils across the country Saturday in a show of support for the Martin family and in a bid to encourage federal charges to be brought against Zimmerman.

Pictures of the crowd in South Carolina via Styles:

Trayvon Martin rally at the state house pic.twitter.com/FCccefZ4C1

- Jasmine Styles (@JStylesWLTX) July 20, 2013

Another shot of the crowd at the Trayvon Martin rally at the state house pic.twitter.com/MpAUwVVVUF

- Jasmine Styles (@JStylesWLTX) July 20, 2013

Follow Caroline on Twitter

Hawaii Hotel Workers Win Small Step Toward Compensation For Wage Theft

Thousands of current and former Hawaii hotel employees could be in line to recover millions in lost tips following a ruling released Monday by the state Supreme Court. The class-action suit has yet to be litigated, but Labor Radio reported this week that it could be worth as much as $10 million.

The case is not unique as workers across the nation's service sector report rampant, ongoing theft of wages, tips and overtime pay by their employers. According to a report by CNN Money, more than 7,000 such lawsuits were filed across the U.S. in 2011 - a 400 percent increase since 2000.

More than a decade later, the fight continues

The Hawaii case dates back to 2000, when hotel workers first filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that they had been shorted millions of dollars after hotel management took all or part of tips given to workers. The case has experienced delays and setbacks since then, creeping forward until the State Supreme Court ruled this week that it could proceed - a decision hailed as a major step forward by hotel workers and their attorneys.

How exactly does this wage theft occur? Imagine a situation where a patron gives a gratuity to a server or hotel employee with the expectation that the tip will be kept by the worker for his service.

In Hawaii, workers allege that management often requires them to pool gratuities into a collective fund, with managers taking a portion and then distributing the rest evenly among the workers. If found to be true, it's a crime with two sets of victims - workers who lose out on tips, and tourists who have been duped into believing they were compensating the hotel employees who open doors, clean rooms, serve in restaurants and bring suitcases to their rooms. This, attorneys claim, is a form of wage theft totalling millions of dollars.

Hawaii News Now reports that attorney John Perkin has filed eight separate suits claiming that the total lost tips could exceed $10 million.

"I would say it's going to be north of $10 million. We have $3 million on one hotel on Kauai alone," Perkin said.

"Its been a long time coming," said Boston-based attorney Harold Lichten to Maui News. "We are really pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling. It took us five years but this is a great day for workers in Hawaii."

Lichten and Perkin believe that the hotels are in violation of a Hawaii law that requires hotels and restaurants to distribute service charges for food and beverage services entirely to employees unless customers are informed that management retains a portion.

"When patrons pay service charges, it looks like a gratuity and then they don't tip," Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney whose firm has cases pending against Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton, Grand Wailea and Starwood, told the Kansas City Star. "We've brought cases like this across the country, but Hawaii is one of three states along with Massachusetts and New York that has an explicit law to address this issue."

Some of the workers belong to Unite Here Local 5, a union representing workers at several Hilton, Ramada and Sheraton locations. Eric Gill, Local 5's financial secretary-treasurer, spoke to KHON 2 news about the impact the case could have on low-wage hotel workers represented by the union.

"This is very important for Hawaii's working people," he said. "Many of us work for tips and rely on them. And of course, if management takes a share and doesn't say so, then the guest thinks they've given a tip and the worker doesn't get it."

The Supreme Court decision affects few of the Local 5 hotel workers, since their contracts already have provisions preventing this type of theft.

Local 5 spokesperson Paola Rodelas offered Mint Press News this official statement when contacted for comment:

"Local 5 applauds the Supreme Court for upholding workers' rights. Tipped workers who work at Local 5 hotels will not see much effect from this ruling, because Local 5 members have many protections for our tips built into our contracts. For those workers who do not have the protection of a Local 5 contract, this decision is a step forward toward justice, fairness, and better working conditions."

All of this occurs as the Hawaii tourism industry is booming, with millions of visitors flocking to the state for its picturesque beaches and beautiful weather each year. According to a report by the Pacific Business News, 7.99 million visitors came to Hawaiian islands in 2012, spending $14.3 billion. The glowing report was originally published by the Hawaii Tourism Authority in January using industry data.

"We could not have achieved this momentous year without the hard work and dedication of the people that support our industry - from the bellmen, storekeepers and flight attendants to the Legislature, business community and residents - we all came together to help Hawaii," said Hawaii Tourism Authority President and CEO Mike McCartney.

Wage theft: An epidemic across the U.S.

The case is a big deal for workers who rely upon tips to supplement paltry wages. In the service industry, it is legal for employers to pay some employees less than minimum wage, since servers, busboys and others make the majority of their wages in tips.

This type of wage theft is not isolated to Hawaii hotel workers and has become rampant across the U.S., according to recent reports.

Last year, CNN reported a 400 percent increase in wage-and-hour violation claims over the last 11 years, a statistic that some experts believe only exposes a fraction of the numerous unreported wage thefts.

This follows a 2008 report by the National Employment Law Center that estimates that 15 percent of the average low-wage worker's annual income is lost to wage theft, underpayment and denied overtime, among other methods of stealing.

The NELP study is based upon a review of working conditions in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

More recently, a report examining the conditions for fast food workers in New York City found that 84 percent reported some form of wage theft.

As a rule, fast food workers do not receive tips, so the wage theft reported involves a much more obvious set of crimes in which employers simply withhold a part of a worker's salary or deny overtime pay.

The findings come from an Anzalone Liszt Grove research survey of 500 of the city's fast food workers, unveiled in May when hundreds of fast food workers were demanding a minimum wage of $15 and the right to form a union without intimidation.

Print This Story

Zimmerman defense team responds to Obama's comments

George Zimmerman's defense team released a statement Friday shortly after President Obama's remarks in a press conference.

"Trayvon Martin could've been me 35 years ago," Obama said, and urged the nation to have a conversation about race.

Zimmerman's legal team promptly responded.

"To focus on this one line misses the nuances of the President's message," reads the statement which was posted at the defense team's website GZLegalcase.com.

Earlier Friday, Robert Zimmerman Jr., George Zimmerman's brother told The Daily Caller that President Obama's remarks reinforced the "mythology surrounding the case." The President did not acknowledge the evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him.

"While we acknowledge and understand the racial context of this case," the defense's statement continues, "we challenge people to look closely and dispassionately at the facts."

"We believe those who look at the facts of the case without prejudice will see that it is a clear case of self-defense, and we are certain that those who take a closer look at the kind of person George Zimmerman is," reads the statement.

Zimmerman Jr. also recalled to TheDC earlier Friday that his brother has helped mentor two African American children whose father is serving a life sentence in prison.

The defense team applauds Obama's courage in discussing the Zimmerman verdict in the statement, but adds, "we would like to stress that the verdict was reached fairly and justly and that it reflects the letter of the law and represents the law's proper application to the facts."

"We hope that the President was not suggesting that this case fits a pattern of racial disparity, because we strongly contend that it does not," they caution, citing the Department of Justice's investigation against Zimmerman for possible hate crimes in the shooting death of Martin.

"Before you judge George Zimmerman or disparage the verdict of the citizen jury, understand the facts in full," the statement reads. "Agree not to listen to just what meets your predisposition, but to accept what exists."

Is The Bleeding Tsarnaev Picture Really Better Than The Tsarnaev Selfie?

By Amanda MarcotteFriday, July 19, 2013 17:09 EDT

What this captures is rarely simple.

The World's Stupidest Controversy© (at least since the Muslim community center near the World Trade Center took over the summer headlines) continues apace. It's becoming increasingly clear that the whole "controversy" over the Rolling Stone cover is mostly being drummed by up right wing nuts who want to increase suspicion that the "liberal media" secretly loves terrorists, though there have been a handful of narcissistic liberals who have joined in, because they want a piece of the "pretending you hate murder the mostest" contest to gain a gold star in murder-hating. (American politics is largely governed by the logic of the playground.) To add more fuel to the fire, Sgt. Sean Murphy, who photographed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capture, has released his photos against the Boston P.D.'s will, in an attempt to show the "real" Tsarnaev. Murphy explains that his photography doesn't deal in nuance or complexity, and it certainly doesn't ask the viewer to think about complex issues like how appearances can be deceiving. No, Murphy demands photography be an art where the bad guys twirl mustaches and wear black hats, and the good guys have strong chins and white hats.

Photography is very simple, it's very basic. It brings us back to the cave. An image like this on the cover of Rolling Stone, we see it instantly as being wrong. What Rolling Stone did was wrong. This guy is evil. This is the real Boston bomber. Not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

It's worth remembering that the RS picture is not a "fluffed and buffed" professional shot at all, but a selfie that Tsarnaev took himself, perfectly fitting with the story's theme about the gulf between how Tsarnaev presented himself to the world and who he apparently really is.

Anyway, we get the point. Murphy eschews subtlety and thinks an image should be simplistic, childish (or caveman-ish), with its emotions blunt and in your face. No thought allowed. You should know exactly how to feel just by looking at it, no matter what it is, and it certainly shouldn't cause you to feel any need for self-reflection or to ask yourself why this image makes you feel the way you do. Presumably, this means no context, cause context starts to introduce the complications that Murphy claims to so hate.

So what did Murphy offer as a context-free image that makes it crystal clear that the bad guy is a bad guy that you should hate, even if you have no idea who he is? I'd imagine a picture of the bad guy posing by some guns and trying to look badass, which is what I think of when I think of simple, blunt images that you can understand immediately without context. Something like this:

But that's not what he offered. He offered this:

Interesting: An image of a bloody, wounded person in a submissive pose. Okay. What about this?

I will say that Murphy, despite clearly knowing nothing about the art of photography, has a native sense of how to shoot good photos. But he's lost the plot if he thinks these photos require any less context and interpretation than the Rolling Stone cover. Just taken without context, the RS cover is a picture of a handsome kid taking a selfie. Without context, these two photos are pictures of a wounded, exhausted kid turning himself over to some unknown people who are apprehending him. If you didn't know who this was, it would be just as easy to believe that the person in it is a hostage in a war as a terrorist who has finally been caught by the cops. You need the context to be able to know how to feel.

In fact, I could easily argue that images of people being hurt and vulnerable are far more likely to cause people to feel pangs of sympathy, even if they know better, than images of the bad guy looking handsome, which tends to only creep people out. (Which was the point.) For instance, take one of my very favorite TV shows, Game of Thrones. One well they regularly go to in order to make you feel more sympathy for a character is to show that person hurt and exhausted.

Example #1:

Jamie Lannister, would-be child killer whose incestuous relations with his sister laid the ground work for a murderous war over a throne that wouldn't be contested if he had kept his hands off Sis. Up until season three, Jaime is played as a pretty much black hat evil villain (though a handsome one, so I guess that confuses the idiots who are up in arms about the RS cover), the kind you hiss and boo when he's onscreen. And then he loses his hand and is filmed as broken, pathetic, wounded, and lost, opening up viewer sympathies so arguments about Jamie's good side can be introduced.

Example #2:

Prior to this, Theon was also a black hat villain, who turned his back on his friends and killed two innocent little boys to scare a conquered people into submission. But now he's been tortured and beaten into submission, inviting enough sympathy from the viewer that we cheer upon hearing that his sister is rallying the troops to come save him.

Example #3:

Obviously, Ned Stark is mostly a white hat character, but I include this photo of him in a similar pose of submission to make this point: Murphy claims that it's obvious that the guy with his head down and the exhausted look on his face who is submitting to authority is a villain, something that we should all know upon looking at him. And that such an image would in no way cause people to glamorize him, etc. So why do filmmakers use this pose so often to make characters seem heroic?

Counter-theory: While the RS cover may give a small amount of fuel to the weird online cult of Jahar fangirls, who are, in the end, childish and powerless, this image of Tsarnaev looking broken and wounded could very well be used by Islamic terrorist propagandists as inspiration. This photo could become a rallying point for the very fundamentalist terrorist websites and publications that fueled the Tsarnaev's ideological spiral that led to violence. In fact, I would be very surprised if it did not.

Not that I think that justifies censoring it. I'm glad Murphy released these photos, because it is important to see that the bad guy is not a mustache-twirling villain, but that bad guys are human, and we are only hurting ourselves if we pretend otherwise. It's just telling that a picture that has a lot more potential to be used to enrage and inspire Islamic terrorists is being applauded by the right, when one that really can't be used for that is being turned into a controversy. That would be because Murphy's photo doesn't fit into the "evil liberal media loves terrorist" narrative-and the narrative, not the facts, is all that the conservatives who are the bulk of the fauxtroversy care about.

Like Raw Story on Facebook

US Court Of Appeals: Genital Searches Of Guantanamo Inmates Can Continue

The government can continue genital searches of inmates at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled.

The Obama administration, which considers the genital searches essential to security at Guantanamo, had appealed a ruling of a federal judge who called the practice "religiously and culturally abhorrent."

District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth last week ordered Guantanamo guards to stop using their hands to conduct groin and anal area searches.

Typically, detainees were frisked on their way to meetings or phone calls with lawyers, and upon returning to their cells.

The detainees' attorneys said that some detainees opted to forgo legal counsel in order to avoid the full body inspections they considered so disrespectful towards their religion.

In his ruling last week, Lamberth concluded that the motivation for the searches is not to enhance security but to deter the detainees' access to attorneys.

Lamberth ordered that guards revert to a previously used method - shaking detainees' pants to dislodge any contraband.

On Wednesday, the appeals court granted a temporary delay in enforcing the ban, giving the administration time to mount a full appeal.

This article originally was published at Global Post.

Print This Story

Judge won't allow Trayvon Martin's texts in Zimmerman trial

SANFORD, Fla. - Judge Debra Nelson ruled Wednesday against two key pieces of evidence sought by George Zimmerman's defense team.

Nelson said that text messages from Trayvon Martin's phone which allegedly showed the slain teen to have a burgeoning penchant for violence will not be allowed into evidence.

Richard Conner, a computer forensics expert hired by the defense, was able to unlock "secret" text messages from the phone number used by Martin.

In those text messages sent from Martin's phone - which analysts for the state were not able to obtain - Martin was said to have had conversations with friends about getting into fights. Martin's half-brother allegedly asked Martin, "when you gonna teach me how to fight?"

Martin also sent text messages showing he was looking to obtain a handgun, he said. Those texts were sent in the week before Martin's February 2012 visit to Sanford.

Nelson had put a decision on Martin's text messages on hold prior to the trial. Both sides argued late into Tuesday evening over the relevance of the texts. State attorney John Guy argued "we don't know who typed these messages, we don't know if they're connected."

Nelson agreed, citing the "authenticity issue".

Nelson also blocked animation created by Daniel Schumaker. The animation relied on witness testimony and statements to re-create the defense's theory about the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin leading up to Martin's death.

Schumaker relied on analysis provided by Vincent di Maio, the renowned gunshot expert who testified Tuesday the Zimmerman's story - that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot - is consistent with the available evidence.

"This is a murder trial. This isn't 'Casablanca.' This isn't 'Iron Man'," argued state attorney Richard Mantei.

A point of contention Tuesday night was whether Martin first struck Zimmerman with his right or left hand.

Nelson ruled that while the animation cannot be introduced into evidence, it can be used as a demonstrative tool by the defense.

As Bradley Manning Trial Winds Down, Government Struggles To Defend ...

As the trial of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning began to wind down on Friday, the international human rights organization Amnesty International posted a message on its website asking the U.S. government to immediately drop the most serious charge facing the 25-year-old: aiding the enemy.

Widney Brown, the senior director for international law and policy at Amnesty International, said that since the evidence has now been presented by both sides in the case, "it's abundantly clear that the charge of 'aiding the enemy' has no basis."

"The government's case for 'aiding the enemy' is ludicrous, and that's not surprising," Brown said. "What's surprising is that the prosecutors in this case, who have a duty to act in the interest of justice, have pushed a theory that making information available on the Internet - whether through WikiLeaks, in a personal blog posting, or on the website of The New York Times - can amount to 'aiding the enemy.'"

As Mint Press News previously reported, the military whistleblower is being tried in military court for releasing more than 700,000 battlefield reports, diplomatic cables and video clips he accessed while working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad.

One of the most significant documents Manning released included a video referred to as " Collateral Murder." The infamous video shows two U.S. Apache helicopters shooting at a group of unarmed adults and children in Iraq in 2007. Two Reuters journalists, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, were killed along with about a dozen other people. Initial reports from the U.S. military said the adults who died were insurgents in a battle with U.S. forces.

However, once the video was released along with transcripts, it became evident there was no battle. The journalists' camera bags were misidentified by the soldiers as AK-47 assault rifles.

Manning said he released the video because he was concerned about the "lack of concern for human life" and lack of "concern for injured children at the scene."

Of the 22 charges Manning faces, aiding the enemy is the most serious. If found guilty, Manning could face life in prison without parole. But in order for the government to be successful in proving Manning the charge, it would have to prove he knowingly gave potentially damaging intelligence information to an enemy of the United States.

In February, Manning took responsibility for releasing the documents to WikiLeaks and pleaded guilty to 10 lesser charges, for which he will serve about 20 years in prison.

In a statement, Manning said he decided to release the documents because he "believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."

Lack of evidence

On its website, Amnesty International says that the prosecution has struggled to prove Manning had "a general evil intent" in releasing the documents. The organization reports that even the government's own witnesses have testified that "they found no evidence that Manning was sympathetic towards al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that he had never expressed disloyalty to his country, that they had no evidence that he had ties to any government other than his own, and that they had no reason to believe he had ever collected money for the information he disclosed."

Brown says that in addition to dropping the aiding the enemy charge, "The prosecution should also take a long, hard look at its entire case and move to drop all other charges that aren't supported by the evidence presented."

Amnesty International said that the prosecutors seemed to be putting WikiLeaks on trial at times instead of Manning, weakening the government's case.

Amnesty International said the prosecution also seemed to have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning was guilty of some of the lesser charges, such as unauthorized use of certain military intelligence software programs. Manning was charged with illegally adding software to his computer, but a special agent testified last week that everyone in Manning's intelligence unit had used that software.

Over the weekend, military judge Col. Denise Lind agreed to hear arguments on Monday afternoon from Manning's lawyers and the prosecution on whether Manning should be acquitted of seven charges, including aiding the enemy. The defense argues that Manning should not be charged with the crimes due to a lack of evidence.

Internet posts = aiding the enemy?

Since the beginning of Manning's trial, many advocates of government transparency have expressed concern that if Manning is found guilty of aiding the enemy, it will set a dangerous precedent for future whistleblowers and free speech in general.

"Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground," Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard University and a constitutional law expert, said.

Free speech advocates are also concerned that Manning's defense team was barred from introducing information suggesting that little or no damage was caused by the leak. As Mint Press News previously reported, Manning was also reportedly not allowed to explain why he decided to leak the information as part of his defense. Instead, he will be allowed to explain himself only when he is sentenced.

Print This Story

Conservative groups targeted by the IRS reject the agency's new expedited ...

The law firm representing dozens of conservative groups targeted by the Internal Revenue Service announced Wednesday that its clients are rejecting the IRS's new expedited review process for 501(c)(4) applications.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) - which has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of 41 conservative groups targeted by the IRS - said its clients are rejecting the new process because it applies a standard that would require that groups spend at least 60 percent of their time and resources on social welfare promotion and no more than 40 percent on political activities.

Seven of ACLJ's clients rejected the process even though they would have qualified for expedited review and already have had applications pending for more than 645 days. One group has an application pending for 1,297 days.

According to ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow, the 60/40 standard the IRS would apply to expedite the applications is "deeply flawed" and not rooted in statutes or regulations.

In a letter to the Department of Justice in response to a notice about the "expedited process for recognition of exemption" Wednesday, Sekulow called the 60/40 standard "merely safe harbor provisions the IRS has crafted in response to the problems that have been created by its own admitted misconduct."

"We have been instructed by our clients to reject the IRS's offer for expedited review on the basis you have proposed," Sekulow wrote. "Respectfully, because these seven clients have been awaiting determination for years and have complied with all legitimate requests for additional information, we request that the IRS complete its review of their application and make a final determination immediately."

The IRS announced last month that it would offer an optional, faster option for the 501(c)(4) process with the 60/40 standard, as a way to reduce the application backlog.

"The IRS is committed to improving our tax-exempt review process," IRS Principal Deputy Commissioner Danny Werfel said in a statement. "This new streamlined option gives certain groups that have waited far too long a quick and clear path to get their status resolved."

The seven organizations that rejected the expedited process are the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots in Arizona, the Allen Area Patriots in Texas, the Laurens County Tea Party in South Carolina, the North East Tarrant Tea Party in Texas, the Myrtle Beach Tea Party in South Carolina, the Albuquerque Tea Party in New Mexico, and the Acadiana Patriots in Louisiana.

Of the 41 groups the ACLJ represents, 19 received tax-exempt status after long delays, 17 are still pending, and 5 withdrew their applications out of frustration. According to an ACLJ spokesman the IRS' criteria for expedited review of 501 (c)(4) applications only applied to the seven groups that rejected the offer.

Follow Caroline on Twitter

California Prisons Under Scrutiny For Sterilizing Female Inmates

More than 150 women in California prisons were sterilized between 2005 and 2010, according to Justice Now, an advocacy organization for women prisoners that's accusing prison officials of using the procedure as a form of birth control.

The California Institution for Women in Corona and the Valley State Prison in Chowchilla were the facilitators of the sterilizations, which cost the system more than $147,000 in payments to doctors. Some inmates say they were harassed and coerced into complying with the procedures.

In 2012, Justice Now presented information to the state's Budget and Financial Review Subcommittee.

"Through a public request act, Justice Now requested and received information that over 150 tubal ligations have been performed by CDCR medical partners during labor and delivery on people in women's prisons since 2006, beginning one month after the recommendation to begin this practice was presented to the Gender Responsive Strategies Committee," states the March 2012 budget testimony submitted by Justice Now.

The prison hospitals agreed in 2010 to adhere to new rules defining what "medically necessary" means. Since then, the prison system has performed just one forced sterilization.

Using federal funding to perform sterilizations for inmates is illegal. California used state funds but failed to seek the required medical approval necessary to perform such surgeries, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

While women signed waivers agreeing to the sterilization procedures - including tubal ligations and ovary removal - many claim they were harassed and misled into doing so.

It is illegal for a physician - or anyone - to pressure a woman into a sterilization procedure. It also is illegal to request a woman agree to sterilization during labor.

But one woman interviewed by the Center of Investigative Reporting, Kimberly Jeffrey, claims that was the scenario she faced while she was being prepped for a cesarean section.

"He said, 'So we're going to be doing this tubal ligation, right?'" she told the Center for Investigative Reporting. "I'm like, 'Tubal ligations? What are you talking about? I don't want any procedure. I just want to have my baby.' I went into a straight panic."

Jeffrey claims this wasn't the first time she had been asked to consider a tubal ligation. Her records show that she refused the procedure during a prenatal appointment in 2009, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting. Jeffrey claims the reason for the tubal ligation request was never explained to her.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Kelli Thomas, a former inmate at the state's Chowchilla prison, underwent surgery to have two cysts removed. She gave permission for the doctor to remove her ovaries only in the case that cancer was detected. During the procedure, cancer was not detected, but the doctor still removed her ovaries.

"I feel like I was tricked," she told the Times. "I gave permission to do it based on a (cancer) diagnosis, and the diagnosis wasn't there."

Aside from not receiving permission from the California Medical Board, the prison performed such procedures outside legal bounds because they were not deemed "medically necessary." Instead, physicians allegedly claimed that a woman who had a history of C-sections could be deemed as qualified for a "medically necessary" sterilization.

Print This Story

Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida over the Zimmerman verdict. Are you?

On Sunday during a concert in Québec City, Stevie Wonder announced that, like many people, he plans to boycott the state of Florida as a reaction to the not guilty verdict in George Zimmerman's trial for killing Trayvon Martin.

He said:

The truth is that, for those that are being lost in the battle for justice, wherever that fits in any part of the world, we can't bring them back. What we can do is we can let our voices be heard, and we can vote in our various countries throughout the world for change and for equality for everybody. That's what I know we can do. And I know I'm not everybody, I'm just one person, I'm a human being. But for the gift that God has given me, and for whatever I mean, I decided today that until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again. As a matter of fact, wherever I find that law exists, I will not perform in that state or in that part of the world. Because what I do know is that people know that my heart is of love for everyone. When I say everyone, I mean everyone. And so, as I said earlier, you can't just talk about it, you have to be about it. We can make change by coming together for the spirit of unity - not in destruction, but in the perpetuation of life itself.

Watch video of his statement, which came near the end of his set, below:

As Alyssa Rosenberg points out at Think Progress, this is not the first time that Wonder has declined to perform in a state for political reasons: he did so in 1991 in protest of Arizona's refusal to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

On the one hand, it is not difficult to imagine why an African-American (or any person of color) might wish to avoid the state of Florida and its Stand Your Ground law after the Zimmerman verdict for their own safety and sense of security. (If you do have difficulty, shame on you and watch the primer LeVar Burton gave on CNN about what even some prominent African-Americans do in order to avoid being shot by the police during traffic stops.) So there are good reasons for a lot of people to make choices about where to travel and spend their money, both for political reasons and practical ones.

On the other hand, as the National Urban League's Marc Morial pointed out on Sunday, the Stand Your Ground law was a product of the conservative legislator organizing group ALEC (which, in the wake of the Martin shooting and successful, popular calls to boycott specific consumer companies that supported ALEC, rescinded its support for the laws). And, in Florida, there are approximately 1 million people employed by the leisure and hospitality industry, which would be affected by a wide-scale boycott. And, as the NAACP pointed out in a 2012 report, the vast majority of the positions in that industry are both low-paid and disproportionately filled by people of color (and hotel owners are the least diverse positions in the industry). In other words, the people who are paid the least in the hospitality industry are disproportionately people of color, who also occupy the positions most likely to face cutbacks in poor economic times - and the company executives and lobbyists who made the decision to join ALEC and fund their push for such laws aren't losing a wink of sleep that their salaries will go down as a result of any boycott.

One can also consider the words of an African-American blogger known as Coco, who wrote of efforts to boycott Texas over its anti-abortion push, "i know, i know, everyone just hates texas so much, and will boycott this an boycott that, and never, never, never go there, but have you thought about the actual women in Texas who don't have that choice?"

And beyond that, a boycott does nothing to fund legislative candidates who ( unlike some incumbents) care to overturn the laws , or a candidate to run successfully against a governor who supported expensive drug testing of welfare recipients and is super pro-gun. It doesn't direct money to groups like the National Urban League, the NAACP or Color of Change, which are trying to gain some justice for Trayvon's family, support hate crimes legislation and enforcement, elect leaders who will and challenge laws like these.

Like online petitions, many boycotts - unless they are tightly focused, strongly organized and sustained over the long term - might feel good to those that promise now or keep up with it later, but they aren't often successful over the long term.

But, as Alyssa noted, the 1991 boycott - especially when it resulted in the rescheduling of the Superbowl in another state - did lead to the reversal of the anti-MLK Day policy.

So where do you stand? Vote in our poll below.

Are you boycotting Florida?

There Needs To Be A Third Choice Besides Death Or Arbitrary Restraint By A ...

By Amanda MarcotteTuesday, July 16, 2013 8:37 EDT

This Tumblr that went up recently called We Are Not Trayvon Martin is an interesting experiment, a way to talk about the role of race and privilege in this case, and how some of us have the privilege-which should be a right!-of being at least safe from would-be vigilantes deciding to murder us for crimes we're committing only in their heads. A lot of us out here are angry and upset about George Zimmerman being able to chase down and murder an unarmed young man, and get away with it because he was able to convince a jury that the young man-gasp!-had the temerity to fight back. Anti-racists, I think, have long understood that the cops are a real threat to young black men who can be randomly treated like criminals on the thinnest of excuses, but the possibility that any random white (or white-appearing, anyway) person can, if you're black, just chase you down and detain you arbitrarily or they now have the legal right to take your life? That's a cold bath of WTF. This tweet captures exactly what is bothering me so much:

I've been thinking about it a lot, because as a woman, being followed by creepy dudes who clearly have bad intentions in their cars while I'm out walking and minding my own business is something I've experienced probably a dozen times in my life. Unsurprisingly, Rachel Jeantel-who was on the phone with Martin when Zimmerman began to follow him- had the threat of rape pop into her head and made a crack about it to Martin before telling him to run. A lot of scary things go through your head when this happens to you: You worry that if he catches up to you, he'll overpower you. You worry that you won't be able to fight him off. You worry about how violent he intends to get with you.

But you know what I never worried about? That if I defended myself, he would have an excuse to shoot me dead and that cops would shrug it off and not bother to contact my family.

I never worried that if he caught up with me, any hitting or kicking to get away would be used as evidence that he was in his rights to murder me.

That's because I'm a white woman, and if a man chased me down and shot me dead, a few scratches on his face would probably be seen as evidence that he was really determined to hurt or kill me, not that he was acting in "self-defense". I have the privilege of people using their basic common sense when it comes to what's going on when creepy guys start following me. Even sexists have to admit that creepy guys stalking women are up to no good. With that in mind, if anyone ever started to chase me with the intention to restrain me against my will (which is, uh, kidnapping) or do bodily harm to me, I can give into the instinct to protect myself by fighting back without worrying that he now has the "right" to kill me.

I've seen a lot of conservatives arguing that Martin should have just surrendered if he didn't want to die. Surrendered, i.e. allowed someone to arbitrarily just hold him there under threat of violence if he tries to leave (which, again, is kidnapping) because, well, he wanted to. That any random white or white-appearing dude has the apparent right to just randomly tell a young black man that he is no longer allowed to move freely, on pain of death. This is bananas. They wouldn't say that for a white woman, and they sure as hell wouldn't say that for a white guy.

I don't know what else to say about this. I just wish that more people could perform the basic act of putting themselves in Trayvon's shoes and realizing that Zimmerman just got away with, functionally, offering him the choice between surrender to a crazy man with unclear but definitely dark intentions or death. In the year 2013, in America. And somehow we've decided that's legal.

Like Raw Story on Facebook

George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had A Gun

By Amanda MarcotteMonday, July 15, 2013 10:49 EDT

It's hard for me to post on the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial without just repeating what everyone else has said about racism, our screwed up court systems, the lack of regard for the lives of young black men. Absent racism, there would be no debate over who is the "thug" in this situation. We wouldn't have to know anything about the backgrounds of Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin to know that the "thug" is the guy who chases an innocent teenager down and provokes a fight with him for the hell of it, and then uses that as a pretext to murder him-and not the teenager who was only out to buy candy to eat while watching the game. But we do know more about the victim and his killer, and every step of the way, it's become clear that Zimmerman is the violent thug, and he and his meathead family are a bunch of simmering rage machines that have built up paranoid visions of the world to justify being hateful and, in Zimmerman's case for sure, violent.

And that's what I keep coming back to: With Zimmerman's history of violence, the fact that he had access to a gun and a right to concealed carry in the first place is beyond the pale. The gun industry knows that violent, paranoid people are a steady source of profits for them, and therefore they have lobbied hard to make sure that said people can continue to give them money without being impeded. If the Florida government wasn't in the thrall of gun manufacturers' remorseless pursuit of profits over human life, Trayvon Martin would be alive today. Here is some of Zimmerman's past that has been covered up in the racist bloviating from wingnuts over this case:

In July 2005, he was arrested for "resisting officer with violence." The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman's former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.

Under common sense gun regulation, Zimmerman would have permanently lost his right to concealed carry when he assaulted a cop. If not then, then when the state granted a restraining order. (His retaliatory restraining order is further evidence of his paranoid mind set that should be taken into consideration when evaluating this case.) If a case is serious enough that the state can force you into an alcohol education program, then it should be serious enough to take your gun away from you. If, as the gun lobby claims, they are only protecting the rights of responsible gun owners, people who have a colorful history of irresponsibility should absolutely not have the right to own guns.

What makes all this even more unsettling is that you look at this history, and you see a man who is being told, over and over again, that he gets to be a violent asshole and no one will do anything to stop him. They'll even make sure that he's free to strap a gun on again and pretend that he's roaming around in a war zone. The odds that a man like this will retire from a career of violence quietly are pretty low. Let's just hope that if he assaults or, god forbid, kills again, the heightened attention will make it much harder for him to get away with it next time.

Warning to trolls: I'm very low on patience today, so don't even bother. Take your racist garbage elsewhere.

Like Raw Story on Facebook

Carney hints Obama is open to another Zimmerman prosecution

White House spokesman Jay Carney claims the president is passively waiting for the Department of Justice to decide whether it will file federal charges against George Zimmerman, who was just acquitted of murder charges by a Florida jury.

"This is a decision made by the Justice Department, by career prosecutors," he told reporters Monday. "All questions... should be directed there, and that is something the president does not involve himself in," he said.

However, statements from President Obama and Carney show the White House is open to a renewed effort to convict Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

On Sunday, for example, Obama issued a statement saying "we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken." His use of "a jury," instead of "the jury," suggests that he would not oppose the creation of another jury to hear more charges against Martin.

That phrase, "a jury" was repeated today by Carney.

Also, Obama's Sunday statement did not mention Zimmerman, or offer any reassurances of protection for him against terrorist threats or another trial.

When asked today about the Zimmerman's absence from the statement, Carney said that "everything the president has to say was contained within that statement."

The Obama administration has taken an active interest in the Zimmerman case throughout its history. Soon after the shooting, Obama broke with a general historic policy of presidents not commenting on local legal matters by announcing to reporters, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon."

"The president commented on the death of a young man... he didn't comment about the disposition of an investigation or a case," Carney claimed.

In early 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder sent aides to Florida to work with protestors on a series of demonstrations including one that was headlined by longtime race baiter and Tawana Brawly hoaxer Al Sharpton. Holder also met with the leaders of the African-American lobbies while they were demanding a reversal of the local jurisdiction's decision not to press charges ( Related: Docs: Justice Department facilitated anti-Zimmerman protests)

After the demonstrations and Holder's visit, the city fired a top law-enforcement official and charged Zimmerman with murder.

A 2012 Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into the case turned up no evidence that could be used to build a federal civil rights case against Zimmerman, whose mother is Hispanic and who has been described as a "white Hispanic" in media coverage.

More clues might be revealed Tuesday, when Holder is slated to give a speech to the NAACP, and is expected to discuss the case.

During the Monday press conference, Carney repeatedly declined to elaborate on the president's response to the verdict, which was slammed by African-American lobbies, such as the NAACP.

The NAACP and other African-American groups say Zimmerman committed a crime when he shot Martin in February 2012.

The Florida jury, however, heard evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground and was sitting on top of him when he was shot.

Holder sees racism in Zimmerman Martin shooting

The nation's top law-enforcement officer told an African-American sorority Monday that he would lead an effort to change Americans' beliefs and judgments about race, following George Zimmerman's Sunday acquittal in the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Attorney General Eric Holder blamed racial attitudes for the killing.

"We are resolved, as you are, to combat violence involving or directed at young people, to prevent future tragedies, and to deal with the underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too-common incidents," Holder told the long-scheduled meeting of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority.

Martin was a 17 year-old black youth in Florida.

"I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honesty about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised," Holder said, while pointing his finger for emphasis.

"We must not, as we have too often in the past, let this opportunity pass," he said, reminding listeners of the episode in 2009 when he called Americans "a national of cowards" for not talking about race in the way he wished.

Holder did use the speech as an opportunity to explain beliefs that he believes are mistaken, nor to offer data that shows suspect attitudes and stereotypes are either commonplace or incorrect.

Holder was appointed as the nation's chief law enforcement officer in 2009 by President Barack Obama.

Holder's effort to blame racial misunderstanding for the initial shooting is unjustified, said several lawyers.

"State prosecutors... tried to prove that throughout their entire case and there was no evidence of it," said Hans Von Spakovsky, a former justice department lawyer now at the centrist Heritage Foundation.

"The jury didn't buy it," he told the The Daily Caller.

Moreover, "FBI reports are now also out in the public domain and the FBI itself admitted there was no racial animus," he added.

"The Sanford Police Department did not indicate race was a factor when they were originally investigating the case," Ron Christie, a lawyer and a former official in President George W. Bush's White House, told TheDC.

"There's zero evidence that for Zimmerman...race was a motivation," said Tom Fitton, president of the civil rights law firm Judicial Watch, adding that there is even some evidence suggesting Zimmerman had no racial animus.

Daily Caller News Foundation

Daily Caller News Foundation

A recently implemented plan that allows Alabama to use race-based benchmarks for student progress is drawing harsh criticism from conservative education reformers and minority parents.

Last month, the federal Department of Education approved Alabama's Plan 2020, which alters the state's federally-required system of measuring K-12 students' college readiness. Students will now be broken into predominantly race-based categories - American Indian; Asian or Pacific Islander; black; English language learners; Hispanic; multiracial; poor; special education; and white - and expectations will be lower or higher depending upon the group.

For example, 91.5 percent of white third-graders should be proficient in mathematics, whereas only 85.5 percent of Hispanic students and 79 percent of black students will be expected to pass, according to the Tuscaloosa News.

Minority parents were not pleased with the new measurements.

"I think it's dumbing our race down and preparing our boys for prison," said Tim Robinson, a black man and father of two elementary school children. "The teachers aren't even going to teach all of them anymore. Not the black boys and girls. And if we sit by and let this happen, it's on us."

Other minority parents echoed his concerns.

Elois Zeanah, president of the Alabama Federation of Republican Women, condemned the race-based standards.

"Isn't this discrimination? Doesn't this imply that some students are not as smart as others depending on their genetic and economic backgrounds?" she asked in a statement.

State superintendent Tommy Bice disagreed that the standards were discriminatory. He said that all subgroups were expected to become 100 percent proficient eventually, but the reality is that students of certain ethnicity are lagging behind.

"Some groups have farther to go," he said in a statement. "We are actually putting more expectation on ourselves and on those students who are behind to increase at a greater rate."

Alabama is just the latest state to receive approval from the federal government to alter its college-readiness measurements. Some 38 states already transitioned to comprehensive measurement systems, and most use different measurements from certain racial groups, according to a report.

Alabama's new plan, however, has been approved at a time when the efficacy of national education curriculum and testing systems are increasingly being called into question. Common Core - a set of federally-backed national curriculum standards being implemented in most states - has prompted a substantial public backlash.

Conservatives fear that the new standards were approved too hastily and amount to a massive federal overreach; and liberals don't like the idea of holding teachers accountable to a national standardized test. Others find the curriculum stifling.

Follow Robby on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Research lets people experience what it feels like to be a cow

Daily Caller News Foundation

Would experiencing a day in the life of a cow make you less likely to eat meat? How would chopping down a tree affect your paper usage? These are questions that Stanford University researchers are using virtual reality to answer.

"If somebody becomes an animal, do they gain empathy for that animal and think about its plight?" asked Jeremy Bailenson, director of Stanford University's Virtual Human Interaction Lab. "In this case, empathy toward the animal also coincides with an environmental benefit, which is that [not eating] animals consumes less energy."

Bailenson is heading research at Stanford in which participants don virtual reality helmets and walk on their hands and feet. They are then able to see themselves as a cow in a virtual mirror. They experience what a cow does on its way to being slaughtered and then record what they eat for the next week to see if being a cow reduced meat consumption.

This is just one experiment Bailenson is conducting, but all his experiments are tailored to finding new ways to encourage environmental conservation.

E&E News reports: "Volunteers also have virtually chopped down a tree, a study aimed at examining attitudes toward paper use. Others took a virtual reality shower while eating lumps of coal - literally consuming it - to gain insight into how much was needed to heat the water."

Some researchers argue that virtual reality can alter people's behavior and change their attitudes with respect to environmental issues like global warming. In fact, the National Science Foundation has doled out $748,000 to universities, including Stanford, to conduct four experiments using virtual environments.

"It's just a much more compelling way of getting people to understand the effects of their behavior now on the future," Tim Herron of the Decision Theatre lab at the University of British Columbia. "It's about visualizing the data for people. Once people can see it, it's amazing how much it changes things. People begin to really understand the necessity to make some changes now to prevent these sort of things."

The results of the virtual cow experiment are still inconclusive, reports E&E News, but comments from some study participants indicate that they now empathize with cows.

"Once I got used to it I began to feel like I was the cow," wrote one participant. "I truly felt like I was going to the slaughter house towards the end and I felt sad that I (as a cow) was going to die. That last prod felt really sad."

According to Bailenson, he has seen some students become more environmentally conscious. Students who had gone through the virtual reality lab of cutting down trees used 20 percent less paper when cleaning up a pre-staged mess than those who had simply watched a video of a tree being cut down.

Bailenson also noted that he gets emails months after people go through the experiment saying they can't walk through the toilet paper aisle of the grocery store without thinking of a falling tree.

Update: This experiment did not receive any of the NFS grant, as previously reported. The NFS and Stanford University have confirmed to TheDC news Foundation that no taxpayer dollars went towards the virtual cow experiment. The article has been corrected to reflect this information. Follow Michael on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallrnewsfoundation.org.

Morsi supporters hold protests across Egypt

Tens of thousands of Islamists rallied Friday in cities across Egypt, vowing to sustain for months their campaign to restore deposed President Mohammed Morsi to power.

Ten days after the military coup that toppled him, however, Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood and its allies appear to have failed to bring a significantly wider segment of Egyptian society into the streets on their side.

The new military-backed administration of interim President Mansour Adly, along with the grand imam of Al-Azhar, the most prominent Sunni Muslim institution, floated offers for "national reconciliation." Newly appointed Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi is reportedly promising to finish assembling his Cabinet by next week, a government official told Egypt's state news agency. A presidential spokesman has said the Muslim Brotherhood will be offered posts.

The Brotherhood remains steadfast in its opposition, saying its supporters will stay in the streets for as long as it takes to force the reinstatement of Morsi, who was overthrown July 3 after four days of massive protests demanding his ouster.

At the main Islamist rally in Cairo, the crowd poured into a large boulevard in front of the Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque, where Morsi supporters have been camped for two weeks.

Egyptian flags, which were fewer in their previous rallies, outnumbered the usual green Islamic banners emblazoned with the Muslim profession of faith - a move to show their movement's broader appeal. Chants and slogans focused on the military, many branding the army chief a "traitor."

"We are ready to stay for a month, two months, a year, or even two years," ultraconservative Salafi cleric Safwat Hegazi told protesters from a stage.

The demonstrators there seem to have dug in for a long sit-in. Tents have been erected and toilets have been set up with brick walls for privacy. Protesters with helmets, homemade body shields and sticks guarded the site, which has drawn Morsi supporters from other provinces.

Egyptians gather to break their fast on the third day of Ramadan, in Tahrir Square, many portesting against ousted President Mohammed Morsi. (Nasser Shiyoukhi/Associated Press)

Army troops are staying about a kilometre away to avoid direct confrontations. On Monday, there were clashes with security forces near the Republican Guard headquarters not far from the site, with more than 50 people killed. Both sides blamed the other for the bloodshed.

Friday's call for demonstrations had sparked fears of further clashes but no violence was reported.

Now that the holy month of Ramadan has begun, when Muslims abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset, many of the protesters rested in their tents, reading the Quran or sleeping. After nightfall, the crowd got renewed energy.

"We have a daily routine of prayers and Quran recitations, then marches around the sit-in," said Hassan al-Ghandoor, a tailor from the Nile Delta who arrived on the day of the military coup and hasn't left since.

"The level of spirituality of this place helps us put up with the daily difficulties," he said. "We are here for an objective, and we will stay here until it is accomplished."

Rallies across the country

Thousands more rallied across the Nile River in city of Giza, and Morsi supporters held a series of marches around the capital, converging on the main site. Protests were held in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria and other cities.

The Brotherhood and other Islamists face the question of how to step up their campaign. So far, they have succeeded in bringing out strong numbers of their own ranks - but there has been little sign of attracting a larger segment of the population.

Morsi supporters have touted their movement as a defence of democracy against a military coup that removed an elected leader, warning that the army is turning Egypt back to dictatorship.

At the same time, however, many of its leaders use the rhetoric that appeals mainly to their political base.

Those opposed to Morsi were able to bring out millions in protests that began June 30 and demanded the president's removal.

Since his fall, those rallies have tapered off, although a crowd was in Tahrir Square on Friday evening for the traditional fast-breaking meal at sunset. The gathering was not intended to be a show of strength by the anti-Morsi camp.

The new administration is moving quickly with its transition, in part to force the Brotherhood to accept it and to show that Egypt is pressing ahead toward democracy.

At the same time, authorities are making allegations aimed at showing Morsi supporters are linked to violence and militancy.

While speaking of reconciliation, the interim leadership has intensified its crackdown on the Brotherhood, starting criminal investigations against Morsi and issuing arrest warrants for other members of the group.

A number of Brotherhood leaders with arrest warrants issued against them are staying at a medical center connected to the Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque, Brotherhood spokesman Ahmed Aref told EgyptbracesforviolenceasMorsisupport.blogspot.com, although he underlined that they are not hiding from arrest.

The Brotherhood's top leader, Mohammed Badie, is not at the site, Aref said, adding that he did not know where he was.

Morsi has been held in an undisclosed military facility since the coup.

U.S. calls for ousted president's release

On Friday, the U.S. joined Germany in calling for his release. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the United States agrees with the German Foreign Ministry, which has urged an "end to all restrictive measures considering Morsi."

Five other Brotherhood leaders are also in detention on various charges, and 10 others -- including Badie --have arrest warrants against them on accusations of inciting violence.

Gehad el-Haddad, the group's spokesman, said in a message posted on his Twitter account that those in detention are "denied visitation, or delivery of clothes, food. All held in solitary confinement."

Prosecutors said they will investigate allegations that Morsi and 30 others Brotherhood leaders escaped from prison in 2011 with help from the Palestinian militant group Hamas. That jailbreak occurred amid the uprising that toppled autocrat Hosni Mubarak.

Anger at the military was rife at Friday's rallies. Posters emblazoned with the word "Traitor" depicted army chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi with blood coming from his mouth. Some banners appeared aimed at the foreign media, with English slogans such as, "Legitimacy is a red line" -- emphasizing Morsi's win at the ballot box.

"Did el-Sissi sell his religion cheaply?" one speaker on the Rabaa al-Adawiya stage asked.

"Leave, el-Sissi!" the crowd replied.

"We are designated martyrs," the speaker added. "We call on el-Sissi and those who participated in this grand treason to repent."

Speaking to the AP, the Brotherhood spokesman el-Haddad said the rally was growing, a continuation of the 2011 uprising that had been centered at Tahrir Square.

'We can disagree on whether this is a coup or a revolution, but there is a reality on the ground, and we have to deal with it not in a negative way.'-Amro Mekki, a senior Al-Nour figure

"This is exactly what we did in Tahrir during the revolution. We are doing it here," he said, adding that the Brotherhood can "keep functioning under a repressive police state."

He said its support was growing, "and more locations in Cairo will come. We are not talking in weeks - we are talking in months."

Mostafa Youssef, 27-year-old cleric, described interim President Adly Mansour and his administration as "puppets while the real power is in the hand of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces. Civilians are just a facade."

Officials in the sole Islamist party that backed Morsi's removal, the Salafi Al-Nour, argued that the Brotherhood had to accept reality and said the party was reaching out through mediators to try to convince it.

"I know the Muslim Brotherhood has stamina," said Amro Mekki, a senior Al-Nour figure. "We can disagree on whether this is a coup or a revolution, but there is a reality on the ground, and we have to deal with it not in a negative way."

He said the Brotherhood needs to move into an opposition position within the new system.