Tag Archives: featured

Parents sue South Glens Falls schools after bullied son kills himself

Parents of boy, 13, who killed himself claim South Glens Falls school failed to address bullying, abuse or to alert them of situation

On the day Jacobe Taras killed himself, he had an appointment to see the school guidance counselor.

A couple weeks earlier, before spring recess and the family trip to Florida and the sunshine and the open waters, the 13-year-old had filled out a survey in class. It was from a school counselor, and it asked whether there was anything anyone needed to talk about. Jacobe wrote “no,” then crossed it out and wrote “maybe.”

He never went to see the guidance counselor that first day back from vacation, on April 13, 2015. And as far as his parents are aware, no one at the Oliver W. Winch Middle School in South Glens Falls ever tried to find out why. Jacobe went home that day and shot himself, leaving a note for his parents describing the torment at the hands of his bullies.

On the day Jacobe Taras killed himself, he had an appointment to see the school guidance counselor.

A couple weeks earlier, before spring recess and the family trip to Florida and the sunshine and the open waters, the 13-year-old had filled out a survey in class. It was from a school counselor, and it asked whether there was anything anyone needed to talk about. Jacobe wrote “no,” then crossed it out and wrote “maybe.”

He never went to see the guidance counselor that first day back from vacation, on April 13, 2015. And as far as his parents are aware, no one at the Oliver W. Winch Middle School in South Glens Falls ever tried to find out why. Jacobe went home that day and shot himself, leaving a note for his parents describing the torment at the hands of his bullies.

Sourced From – http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Parents-sue-South-Glens-Falls-schools-after-7951546.php

Controversial Immigration Law Passed in the USA

Posted By: Daryl Worthington

The first major attempt at restricting immigration to the United States was passed into law on 26th May, 1924. Signed by President Calvin Coolidge, the Comprehensive Immigration Act has been known under a variety of names: the National Origins Act, the Johnson- Reed Act and the Asian Exclusion Act, which all give an insight into its controversial goals.

Beyond simply limiting the number of immigrants the USA would accept, the Act was a clear attempt to reduce the number of arrivals from certain countries while encouraging those from others. Immigration quotas were set for individual nations, based on census data from 1890.

Ceilings for the number of new immigrants from each country were set at 2% of the total of any given nation’s residents in the USA as of 1890. It was a system that seemed particularly geared towards putting a barrier up for immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, two regions that had seen a massive influx to the USA since 1890. In the first decade of the twentieth century for example, an average of 200,000 Italians annually entered the USA. Following the 1924 Act, the annual quota was limited to 4,000 a year.

The Comprehensive Immigration Act was an attempt to control the demographics of the USA. Prior to the wave of immigration from southern and eastern Europe, the majority of US citizens had come from Northern and Central European backgrounds; Scandinavia, Britain, Germany. The quotas were designed to preserve this tradition. The annual limit for German immigrants was 51,227, for British 34,007, while that for Spain was just 131 and for Poland 5,982.

For other nationalities, the provisions were even more restrictive. The act barred entry to anyone ineligible for citizenship, essentially ending all immigration from Asia to the USA. This caused particular anger in Japan, which had made a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ with Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 to allow more liberal immigration quotas from the country. 26th May was declared a day of national humiliation in Japan, while a Japanese citizen later committed suicide outside the US embassy in Tokyo in an act of protest.

The law did allow some to enter without going through the quota system, those with a university education for instance, or professional training as a doctor or engineer, but it was nevertheless a watershed moment in US immigration policy reflecting new attitudes among the population.

Following the First World War, a wave of isolationist sentiment had spread across the USA, fueled by a desire to avoid further involvement in European wars. At the same time, the spread of Communism across Europe had ignited fears that such ideas could migrate across the Atlantic. Most crucially perhaps, growing competition in the labour market had heightened racial discrimination in the country. Prior to the 1924 Act, state wide legislation had already been issued in California to exclude Japanese people from jobs in industry and agriculture.

Remarkably, the quota system of the Comprehensive Immigration Act remained in place until 1965, when the Hart-Cellar Act replaced the national origins system with one focusing instead on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with existing US citizens.

Sourced From – http://www.newhistorian.com/controversial-immigration-law-passed-usa/6545/

Civil rights activist group says the Air Force Academy favors Christianity over other religions

Using new billboard, ad campaign to spread message

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – A civil rights activist group is taking aim at the Air Force Academy accusing it of favoring Christianity over other religions.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said the problem has been going on for years and the group has now launched a new campaign to try to get President Barack Obama’s attention.

The private group has put up a billboard on I-25, south near Garden of the Gods, and plans to have a banner flown by a plane that says “Why is Jesus the Commander in Chief at USAFA?”

It also launched a TV advertisement that says, “Welcome Mr. President to our Airforce Academy. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation asks the questions: why is Jesus Commander in Chief here?”

“At the Airforce Academy today it’s a freaking train wreck when it comes to the separation of church and state,” said Mikey Weinstein, Founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Weinstein said cadets are often treated differently, if they’re not fundamentalist Christians.

“We’ve had cadets bullied and pressured, members of the staff pressured to attend the national pray events that occur there,” he said.

Weinstein said they hope President Obama will take notice of their campaign, and address the issue when he speaks at the Academy’s graduation on Thursday.

“This destroys unit cohesion, good order, morale and disciple,” he further explained.

Denver7 reached out to the Air Force Academy about the group’s concern, but was told the academy had no comment.

For Weinstein, he said they’re fighting for the rights of cadets of all faiths.

“We would like to see people who are violating the oath to the U.S. Constitution aggressively investigated and visibly punished at the Air Force Academy,” he said.

Sourced From     – http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/colorado-springs-area/civil-rights-activist-group-says-the-air-force-academy-favors-christianity-over-other-religons

Drug Companies Subpoenaed Over Questionable Charity Connections

By

Whenever there is a report of a drug company jacking up the price of a prescription medication, the pharma industry is often quick to point out that there are non-profit charities ready and willing to help patients get these drugs at a more affordable rate. However, those charities may have very close ties to the drug maker that could not only help the company turn a profit, but avoid some tax obligations. In recent months, several large pharmaceutical companies have been subpoenaed as part of an ongoing federal investigation into these connections.

It works like this: Bob’s Drug Company acquires the rights to prescription drug Gleemonex and decides to jack up the price 500%, knowing that some people will not be able to afford the co-pay. However, it’s in the interest of Bob to keep as many patients using Gleemonex as possible, so it looks for ways to make the drug more affordable to those most in need: low-income patients on Medicare.

Now, Bob’s Drug Co. can’t directly fund the co-pay of a Medicare patient. That would effectively be Bob paying Bob, which is an illegal kickback under federal law. What Bob can do is call Sally’s Drug Charity, which will cover the Medicare co-pay on certain drugs.

So Bob makes a sizable donation, which Sally can then use to make Medicare co-pays, meaning patients continue using Gleemonex.

Thing is, while the Medicare patient isn’t having to go broke paying for Gleemonex, taxpayers might be. After all, the co-pay is usually only a fraction of the full amount that Medicare pays to the drug maker. Thus, Bob continues to get the full Medicare payment and enjoy the tax write-off from his donation to Sally’s charity.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek recently published an entire cover story on how the pharma industry uses these charities for their own financial, tax, and public-relations benefit. You should definitely check it out.

Today, Bloomberg published a story on the string of subpoenas issued to four high-profile pharma companies — Valeant, Gilead Sciencse, Biogen, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals — since last fall, mostly by federal prosecutors out of Massachusetts.

The nature of the subpoenas is vague, though they do reference investigations into the companies’ relationships with co-pay charties.

With Medicare on the hook for the balance of these prescription payments, the federal government is taking a particular interest in the possibility that drug makers have exerted too much influence over these charities as donations have grown.

Since 2010, donations to the seven biggest co-pay charities have more than doubled, reaching $1.1 billion in 2014.

Going back to the above fictional example: Under the law, Sally is not supposed to be swayed by Bob or other donors when it comes to which drugs it chooses to cover, which patients to accept, or how much of each drugs co-pay it will subsidize. So if Sally is covers co-pays for a competitor to Gleemonex, she can’t be swayed by Bob’s big bucks to give preferential treatment to his drug.

Recent reports indicate that some charities’ practices may have been motivated by donor money. For example, former employees at one charity told Bloomberg that when patients needed Jazz narcolepsy medication Xyrem, they were processed in a time manner, while patients seeking co-pay help for competing narcolepsy drugs were sometimes steered away or wait-listed if that other company wasn’t also donating to the charity.

The charities have denied allegations of favoritism of bad practices.

Sourced From –  https://consumerist.com/2016/05/27/drug-companies-subpoenaed-over-questionable-charity-connections/

Va. Supreme Court rules same-sex couples equal in divorce law

The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that a Fairfax County man can stop paying spousal support to his ex-wife because she lives with another woman, reversing lower courts that found the state’s cohabitation standard does not apply to same-sex couples.

The ruling, handed down late last week, clarifies a section of Virginia divorce law nearly a year after same-sex marriage became legal nationwide.

The case stemmed from the separation of Michael Luttrell and Samantha Cucco, who divorced in 2008 after being married for 16 years. Luttrell agreed to pay alimony to Cucco for eight years.

Under state law, alimony payments can be cut off if the payee remarries or has been “habitually cohabitating with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage” for a year or more.

Luttrell sought to end the payments in 2014. He said in court filings that Cucco was engaged to her new partner and had been living with her for more than a year.

Cucco argued her situation did not qualify as cohabitation because the relationship was with another woman.

Both Fairfax County Circuit Court and the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled in Cucco’s favor; the courts found that cohabitation was understood to apply only to relationships between a man and a woman.

The state Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and said their interpretation would produce an “untenable result” of unequal treatment in identical divorce situations.

“The individual in the same-sex relationship would continue to receive support while the individual in the opposite-sex relationship would not,” Justice William C. Mims wrote in the high court’s opinion. “We cannot conclude that the General Assembly intended such a result.”

Mims was serving in the legislature in 1997 when the alimony statute at the heart of the case was amended.

Mims noted in the opinion that the General Assembly considered language clearly defining cohabitation as only pertaining to the opposite sex, but that amendment was rejected in favor of the broader language in the law today.

“By declining to modify the word ‘person’ with the phrase ‘of the opposite sex,’ the General Assembly signaled its intention that ‘person’ would include individuals of either sex,” he wrote.

John P. O’Herron, a Richmond appellate attorney who tracked the case, said it was somewhat unusual because Cucco did not contest the appeals above the circuit court.

Though the case pertains to new legal questions posed by gay marriage, O’Herron said the ruling likely will affect only the specific issue in divorce law.

“I really don’t see this as sort of altering the landscape,” he said.

The ACLU of Virginia represented Luttrell in the case. Gail Deady, an ACLU of Virginia lawyer focused on gender equality, said the ruling recognizes that “all laws regarding marriage must be applied equally regardless of the gender of the individuals involved.”

“Marriage equality means marriage equality,” Deady said.

Sourced From   – http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_80ae492a-0a9b-5ae0-9df8-5f7efe1fdc0c.html