Marcus MIller

| | Comments (0)

Dick Holmes (high school bud bass player) just turned me onto this fabulous funky music.m and superb bass player...

What can I say but yum?

MGod has moved on

| | Comments (0)

Joe Briggs short salute to his cousin Marvin Briggs

And then there is Marvin's longer salute to his mother "Appreciate Ya"

Burn Cream for Free

| | Comments (0)

Burn victims are making incredible recoveries all thanks to a Tampa native.

Dr.Wayne Miller invented a burn solution after a pipe in his jacuzzi exploded, leaving him with first-degree burns from his face to his waist. Two weeks after he applied his cream to the burns, he had no scars and was completely healed.

Ten years later, his burn solution was approved by the FDA, and the doctor created a non-profit, the BurnSolution foundation, to give the cream out for free to homeless people across the country who are more likely to face ailments such as intense sunburns, burns from cooking on an open fire, bug bites, road rash, infected cuts or wounds, blisters and sores.

The organization relies on donations to help distribute the cream free of charge.

To donate, visit

To contact the BurnSolution Foundation, call (813) 417-3323 or e-mail


HPV Is Spread by Having Sex. So Why Don't People Talk About That?

by Maggie Fox

There's a virus that almost everyone gets at some point in their lives.

It can cause cancer, and rates of the cancers it causes are growing among men.

The virus is the human papillomavirus or HPV, and it's the main cause of cervical cancer, anal cancer and, more recently, mouth and throat cancer. It's passed mostly via sex, but doctors aren't talking about that to their patients. Why not?

It's because there is a vaccine to prevent HPV infection. But for it to work best, people have to get it long before they could ever be infected. That means vaccinating 11- and 12-year-olds, and most parents get very squeamish about the thought of sex and kids that age.

"There are some taboo subjects but the fact is that almost every human being is going to get HPV at some point in their life through normal, intimate human activity," said Dr. Lois Ramondetta, chief of gynecologic oncology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

HPV is the main cause of cervical cancer, once a leading cancer among women. It still causes 11,000 cases of cervical cancer a year in the U.S., but screening via pap smears and, more lately, HPV tests, has cut the rate of new cases and of deaths dramatically.
""There's nothing that men and women can do to prevent oral cancer.""

The CDC estimates that HPV causes 31,500 cases of cancer a year. Most are in women, but more head and neck cancers are caused in men than in women.

Earlier this week, researchers reported that a startling number of men are infected with HPV in the mouth and throat -- 11 percent of all men tested between 2011 and 2014. They are at risk of developing oral cancer.

This cancer mostly starts to show up in middle age, and men understandably want to know why they got it. Oral sex appears to be the cause -- probably dating back to when they were in their late teens or early 20s.

But it turns out there's not much people can do to discover they're infected.

"There is no test to find out a person's 'HPV status'," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. "Also, there is no approved HPV test to find HPV in the mouth or throat."

And there's no way to go back and undo whatever caused the infection that has caused cancer decades later.

"We don't know how it goes from being an infection to causing the cancer," Ramondetta said. "And we don't know why the virus doesn't go away in some people."

So fuck you all.

Comparing Obama and Trump

| | Comments (0)


Pastor: When White Folks Say Obama Was an "Embarrassment", Here's Your Response

One of the common responses to criticism of Donald Trump by his mostly white voters is something along the lines "we were embarrassed by Obama for 8 years." One pastor is calling out that nonsense.

Progressive pastor John Pavlovitz, a favorite of ours here, has penned an open letter to those white Trump voters, informing them that no, in fact, they weren't embarrassed by the former President :

Were you embarrassed by his lone and enduring twenty-five year marriage to a strong woman he's never ceased to publicly praise, respect, or cherish?

Were you embarrassed by the way he lovingly and sweetly parented and protected his daughters?

Pavolovitz asked these, along with a lot of other relevant questions. Here is the whole post:

I remember the day after the Election, a friend of mine who happens to be white, remarked on social media that he "finally wasn't embarrassed of America and our President."

I sprained my eyes rolling them and they have never fully recovered.

Since then I've heard this sentiment echoed by more white folks than I can count, especially in recent months; supposed relief at once again having a leader who instills pride.

Since I don't have the time to ask each of the individually, I'll ask here:

So, you were embarrassed for the past 8 years, huh?


What exactly were you embarrassed by?

Were you embarrassed by his lone and enduring twenty-five year marriage to a strong woman he's never ceased to publicly praise, respect, or cherish?

Were you embarrassed by the way he lovingly and sweetly parented and protected his daughters?

Were you embarrassed by his Columbia University degree in Political Science or his graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School?

Maybe you were embarrassed by his white American and Black Kenyan parents, or the diversity he was raised in as normal?

Were you embarrassed by his eloquence, his quick wit, his easy humor, his seeming comfort meeting with both world leaders and street cleaners; by his bright smile or his sense of empathy or his steadiness--perhaps by his lack of personal scandals or verbal gaffes or impulsive tirades?

No. Of course you weren't.

Honestly, I don't believe you were ever embarrassed. That word implies an association that brings ridicule, one that makes you ashamed by association, and if that's something you claim to have experienced over the past eight years by having Barack Obama representing you in the world--I'm going to suggest you rethink your word choice.

You weren't "embarrassed" by Barack Obama.

You were threatened by him.
You were offended by him.
You were challenged by him.
You were enraged by him.

But I don't believe it had anything to do with his resume or his experience or his character or his conduct in office--because you seem fully proud right now to be associated with a three-time married, serial adulterer and confessed predator; a man whose election and business dealings and relationships are riddled with controversy and malfeasance. You're perfectly fine being represented by a bullying, obnoxious, genitalia-grabbing, Tweet-ranting, Prime Minister-shoving charlatan who's managed to offended all our allies in a few short months. And you're okay with him putting on religious faith like a rented, dusty, ill-fitting tuxedo and immediately tossing it in the garbage when he's finished with it.

None of that you're embarrassed of? I wonder how that works.

Actually, I'm afraid I have an idea. I hope I'm wrong.

Listen, you're perfectly within your rights to have disagreed with Barack Obama's policies or to have taken issue with his tactics. No one's claiming he was a flawless politician or a perfect human being. But somehow I don't think that's what we're talking about here. I think the thing President Obama did that really upset you, white friend--was having a complexion that was far darker than you were ever comfortable with. I think the President we have now feels much better.

Because objectively speaking, if what's happening in our country right now doesn't cause you great shame and doesn't induce the continual meeting of your palm to your face--I don't believe embarrassment is ever something you struggle with.

No, if you claimed to be "embarrassed" by Barack Obama but you're not embarrassed by Donald Trump--I'm going to strongly suggest it was largely a pigmentation issue.

And as an American and a Christian committed to diversity and equality and to the liberty at the heart of this nation--that, embarrasses me.

Well said, Pastor. Well said indeed.

Nick Cannon's Take

| | Comments (0)

Go Nick

Reclaim Your Ideals

| | Comments (0)


Great idea !!!

Painfully True

| | Comments (0)

Prairie Home Companion & Beyond


Post of the day

| | Comments (0)

from newsvine discussion:

ProudProgressive-780498 #2.25

In reply to: Shady BB #2.24

"Last KKK guy of any fame was Robert Byrd. You know Hillary's mentor."

That is a favorite talking point of the truly ignorant.

There is no doubt that Robert Byrd was affiliated with the KKK as a young politician in West Virginia. There is also no doubt that Robert Byrd disassociated himself from the Klan in the 1960's and, beginning in 1965, consistently supported civil rights and voter rights for the next four decades. Hillary Clinton knew him only as a defender of civil rights.

Meanwhile, many of Byrd's contemporaries, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, for example, switched parties when the Democrats became the party of civil rights. First as Dixiecrats, then as Republicans, Helms and Thurmond fought against integration, school bussing, civil rights and voter rights and continued to do so far into their senility.

It is pathetic when the only example of racism in the Democratic Party that you can dredge up is a guy who changed his ways and distanced himself from the racism that the modern Republican party has nurtured and supported.

Of course you have been schooled on this issue before and as a willfully ignorant blowhard you have ignored the truth and continue this disingenuous and dishonest argument. But when it is all the fuck you've got I guess you have no choice (unless you want to reform and be a non-deplorable).

Robert Byrd reformed; you can too.

Way Way Way Back Machine

| | Comments (0)

hat tip to m johnston

Ancient Canadian Village 10,000 Years Older Than The Pyramids


For hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years, generations of the Heiltsuk Nation - an indigenous group in British Columbia - have passed down the oral histories of where they came from.

The Nation claims that its ancestors fled for survival to a coastal area in Canada that never froze during the Ice Age.

A new excavation on Triquet Island on British Columbia's Central Coast has now backed up that claim, according to local news outlet CBC.

Archaeologist Alisha Gauvreau, a PhD student from the University of Victoria and a scholar with the research institute Hakai, led a team that excavated the site in late 2016.

They discovered several artifacts from what appears to be an ancient village, including carved wooden tools and bits of charcoal, in a thin horizontal layer of soil, called paleosol.

The team then sent the charcoal flakes to a lab for carbon dating, and found that the pieces date back approximately between 13,613 to 14,086 years ago, thousands of years before Egypt built its pyramids.

The artifacts are some of the oldest found in North America. In 1977, Washington State University archaeologists excavated a spear tip and mastodon rib bone (an extinct species related to elephants) near Washington's Olympic Peninsula.

After CT scans in 2011, the fossils pushed estimates of the earliest human habitation on the West Coast back by 800 years (to about 13,800 years before present day).

The latest discovery will help archaeologists understand with more detail how more North American civilisations, like the Heiltsuk Nation, began.

One popular theory is that the first native North Americans ventured from Asia over an ice-free, Alaskan land bridge to what is now eastern and central Canada during the Ice Age.

Another theory, which the University of Victoria's research supports, is that they were sea mammal hunters and travelled by boat.

In a 2016 paper, Gauvreau also notes that other oral histories could be further legitimised through archaeological digs.

"This find is very important because it reaffirms a lot of the history that our people have been talking about for thousands of years," William Housty, a member of Heiltsuk Nation, told CBC News.

Tale of the Dead Ass

| | Comments (0)


American Shakedown

| | Comments (0)

Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money

from CBC.CA

On its official website, the Canadian government informs its citizens that "there is no limit to the amount of money that you may legally take into or out of the United States." Nonetheless, it adds, banking in the U.S. can be difficult for non-residents, so Canadians shouldn't carry large amounts of cash.

That last bit is excellent advice, but for an entirely different reason than the one Ottawa cites.

There's a shakedown going on in the U.S., and the perps are in uniform.

Across America, law enforcement officers -- from federal agents to state troopers right down to sheriffs in one-street backwaters -- are operating a vast, co-ordinated scheme to grab as much of the public's cash as they can; "hand over fist," to use the words of one police trainer.

Roadside seizure

It usually starts on the road somewhere. An officer pulls you over for some minor infraction -- changing lanes without proper signalling, following the car ahead too closely, straddling lanes. The offence is irrelevant.

Then the police officer wants to chat, asking questions about where you're going, or where you came from, and why. He'll peer into your car, then perhaps ask permission to search it, citing the need for vigilance against terrorist weaponry or drugs.

What he's really looking for, though, is money.

And if you were foolish (or intimidated) enough to have consented to the search, and you're carrying any significant amount of cash, you are now likely to lose it.

The officer will probably produce a waiver, saying that if you just sign over the money then the whole matter will just disappear, and you'll be able to go on your way.

Refuse to sign it, and he may take the cash anyway, proclaiming it the probable proceeds of drugs or some other crime.

Either way, you almost certainly won't be charged with anything; the objective is to take your money, not burden the system.

You'll have the right to seek its return in court, but of course that will mean big lawyer's fees, and legally documenting exactly where the money came from. You will need to prove you are not a drug dealer or a terrorist.

It might take a year or two. And several trips back to the jurisdiction where you were pulled over. Sorry.

In places like Tijuana, police don't make any pretense about this sort of thing. Here in the U.S., though, it's dressed up in terms like "interdiction and forfeiture," or "the equitable sharing program."

Authorities claim it's legal, but some prosecutors and judges have called it what it is: abuse.

In any case, it's a nasty American reality.

Irma and Me

| | Comments (0)

Apparently coming straight at me in Winter Haven

Siphoning heat from the Yellowstone Caldera could lower the risk of a deadly eruption while generating electricity.


Humans have witnessed many cataclysmic volcanic eruptions, from the one that destroyed Pompeii in 79 A.D. to the extraordinary Krakatoa eruption of 1883. But around the world right now there are about 20 so-called "supervolcanoes" that could outdo them all.

One of these monster volcanoes lurks beneath Yellowstone National Park. The Yellowstone Caldera is an enormous craterlike depression measuring 30 miles by 45 miles and filled with molten material (magma). If it were to blast its innards out in a super-eruption, it's no exaggeration to say that the human race could be imperiled.

But scientists at NASA have sketched the rough outlines of a plan that they say would not only spare us from a deadly super-eruption but also turn the Yellowstone supervolcano into a source of electric power. In a write-up of the plan first shared with the BBC, the team argues that we could siphon heat from the caldera until it becomes too cool to erupt -- and convert the geothermal energy into electricity.

"The primary to gradually defang Yellowstone as a threat to humanity," says Dr. Brian Wilcox, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

That's a noble goal, but could the team's provocative ideas really work? "It's pie in the sky right now," says Dr. Charles Connor, a volcanologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa, "but it's a great trajectory to think about."
Chilling out

A supervolcano eruption can spew out hundreds of cubic miles of magma. Fortunately, such outbursts are rare. The last super-eruption happened about 74,000 years ago -- long before civilization's rise. Geologic evidence suggests that Yellowstone's supervolcano mounts a massive eruption once every 600,000 to 800,000 years. The most recent occurred about 640,000 years ago.

Those facts may be reassuring, but experts say they're no excuse for complacency.

"Even though it's unlikely to happen in anybody's given lifetime, it will eventually happen," Wilcox says of a supervolcano eruption. "One of these things is going to blow, and it's going to be devastating."

In a Yellowstone super-eruption, everything within 60 miles could be incinerated. Wyoming and surrounding states could be blanketed with three feet of volcanic ash, and some ash would likely spread over most of North America. The dust and gases released by the eruption would blot out enough sunlight to wipe out crops and plunge the world into a "volcanic winter" that could last for a decade or more. The ensuing famine could kill untold millions.

But Wilcox and his colleagues say we could lower the risk by drilling into the hot rock near Yellowstone's magma chamber, starting several miles outside the park.

Water would be pumped through the borehole into the hot rock and then return to the surface at a temperature of more than 600 degrees Fahrenheit. The hot water could be used to drive turbines to generate electric power. Then the water, now cooled, could be pumped back underground to steal away more heat.

Great care would need to be taken to make sure the drilling process didn't inadvertently trigger an eruption. Going slowly and approaching the magma chamber from the sides and beneath would be the safest approach, according to Wilcox. And he says it would all be surprisingly feasible.

Some scenes from Irma destruction

| | Comments (0)

Half of Steely Dan Gone

| | Comments (0)

Walter Becker, Guitarist Who Co-Founded Steely Dan, Dead at Age 67

Walter Becker, co-founder of the influential jazz-rock band Steely Dan, died on Sunday at age 67, according to his website, which did not disclose the cause of death.

Becker, who played lead guitar, formed Steely Dan with Donald Fagen, its keyboardist and lead vocalist. In its heyday in the 1970s, the band scored hits with "Reelin' in the Years," "Do It Again," "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" and "Deacon Blues."

Walter Becker, co-founder of the influential jazz-rock band Steely Dan, died on Sunday at age 67, according to his website, which did not disclose the cause of death.

Becker, who played lead guitar, formed Steely Dan with Donald Fagen, its keyboardist and lead vocalist. In its heyday in the 1970s, the band scored hits with "Reelin' in the Years," "Do It Again," "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" and "Deacon Blues."
Image: Walter Becker performs with Steely Dan in concert at the Beacon Theatre, New York, Oct. 28, 2016.
Walter Becker performs with Steely Dan in concert at the Beacon Theatre, New York, Oct. 28, 2016. Gregory Pace/BEI/Shutterstock / AP

Becker and Fagen became friends as students at Bard College in New York in the late 1960s. After working as touring musicians they moved to Los Angeles, releasing the first Steely Dan album in 1972: "Can't Buy a Thrill." The band took their name from a fanciful dildo that appears in the beat novelist William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch."

The band was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland in 2001, where their official biography describes their 1970s albums as "wry, nuanced and hyper-literate" that are "highly regarded by connoisseurs of pop hooks, jazz harmony and desiccating wit."

After a long hiatus, the band reunited in the late 1990s to record its first studio album in 20 years, according to the Steely Dan website. That album, "Two Against Nature," would go on to win Album of the Year in 2000 at the Grammy Awards.

Becker missed concerts earlier in the year as he recovered from an unspecified medical procedure, Fagen told Billboard.

Is Impeachment Enough?

| | Comments (0)

How about eradication?

It's Time: Congress Needs to Open a Formal Impeachment Inquiry

Trump crosses heart.02JPG.jpg

By Jan Cheong, Benjamin Wittes

Last Tuesday, the New York Times published a foggy story noting that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell "has mused about whether Mr. Trump will be in a position to lead the Republican Party into next year's elections and beyond."

The time for musing has passed. It's now time to begin a serious conversation about the impeachment and removal of President Trump by opening a formal impeachment inquiry.

The evidence of criminality on Trump's part is little clearer today than it was a day, a week, or a month ago. But no conscientious member of the House of Representatives can at this stage fail to share McConnell's doubts about Trump's fundamental fitness for office. As the Trump presidency enters its eighth month, those members of Congress who are serious about their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution" must confront a question. It's not, in the first instance, whether the President should be removed from office, or even whether he should be impeached. It is merely this: whether given everything Trump has done, said, tweeted and indeed been since his inauguration, the House has a duty, as a body, to think about its obligations under the impeachment clauses of the Constitution--that is, whether the House needs to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open a formal inquiry into possible impeachment.

It's not a hard question. Indeed, merely to ask it plainly is also to answer it.

A Cold Civil War?

| | Comments (0)

Hat tip To Mr Baker

'The civil war lies on us like a sleeping dragon': America's deadly divide - and why it has returned


I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just," Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1781. The American revolution still raged, many of his own slaves had escaped, his beloved Virginia teetered on social and political chaos. Jefferson, who had crafted the Declaration of Independence for this fledgling nation at war with the world's strongest empire, felt deeply worried about whether his new country could survive with slavery, much less the war against Britain. Slavery was a system, said Jefferson, "daily exercised in tyranny," with slaveholders practicing "unremitting despotism", and the slaves a "degrading submission".

The founder was hopeless and hopeful. He admitted that slaveholding rendered his own class depraved "despots" and destroyed the "amor patriae" of their bondsmen. But his fear was universal. "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" This advocate of the natural rights tradition, and confounding contradictory genius, ended his rumination with the vague entreaty that his countrymen "be contented to hope" that a "mollifying" of the conditions of slaves and a new "spirit" from the revolution would in the "order of events" save his country.

Danger cannot come from abroad ... If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher
Abraham Lincoln in 1838

For that republic to survive it took far more than hope and a faith in progress. Indeed, it did not survive; in roughly four score years it tore itself asunder over the issue of racial slavery, as well as over fateful contradictions in its constitution. The American disunion of 1861-65, the emancipation of 4 million slaves, and the reimagining of the second republic that resulted form the pivot of American history. The civil war sits like the giant sleeping dragon of American history ever ready to rise up when we do not expect it and strike us with unbearable fire. It has happened here - existential civil war, fought with unspeakable death and suffering for fundamentally different visions of the future.

Republics are ever unsteady and at risk, as our first and second founders well understood. Americans love to believe their history is blessed and exceptional, the story of a people with creeds born of the Enlightenment that will govern the worst of human nature and inspire our "better angels" to hold us together. Sometimes they do. But this most diverse nation in the world is still an experiment, and we are once again in a political condition that has made us ask if we are on the verge of some kind of new civil conflict.

In one of his earliest speeches, the Young Men's Lyceum address, in 1838, Abraham Lincoln worried about politicians' unbridled ambition, about mob violence, and about the "perpetuation of our political institutions". The abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy had just been murdered by a mob the previous year in Illinois. Lincoln saw an "ill omen" across the land due to the slavery question. He felt a deep sense of responsibility inherited from the "fathers" of the revolution. How to preserve and renew "the edifice of liberty and equal rights", he declared, provided the challenge of his generation. "At what point shall we expect the approach of danger?" Lincoln asked. "By what means shall we fortify against it?" His worries made him turn inward. "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined ... could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years." Lincoln did not fear foreign enemies. If "danger" would "ever reach us", he said, "it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Those words were prescient in Lincoln's own century. But they have a frightful clarity even today. Where are we now? Are Americans on the verge of some kind of social disintegration, political breakup, or collective nervous breakdown, as the writer Paul Starobin has recently asked? Starobin has written a new book, Madness Rules the Hour: Charleston, 1860, and the Mania for War, in which he revisits the old thesis that the secession moment represented a "crisis of fear" that led tragically to disunion and war. Psychologically and verbally, in the comment sections on the internet, and in talkshow television, we are a society, as Starobin shows, already engaged in a war of words. And it has been thus for a long time. Americans are expressing their hatreds, their deepest prejudices, and their fierce ideologies. It remains to be seen whether we have a deep enough well of tolerance and faith in free speech to endure this "catharsis" we seem to seek.

Trump's Wall Funding

| | Comments (0)

Best idea yet !!


Still Relevant

| | Comments (0)

A Bit of Soul Searching

| | Comments (0)


"People pontificate, "Suicide is selfishness." Career churchmen like Pater go a step further and call it a cowardly assault on the living. Oafs argue this specious line for varying reason: to evade fingers of blame, to impress one's audience with one's mental fiber, to vent anger, or just because one lacks the necessary suffering to sympathize. Cowardice is nothing to do with it - suicide takes considerable courage. Japanese have the right idea. No, what's selfish is to demand another to endure an intolerable existence, just to spare families, friends, and enemies a bit of soul-searching."


Criminal justice officials across the country are struggling to break the recidivism cycle in which prisoners are released only to land right back behind bars. These prisoners are among the most poorly educated people in the country, and that fact holds the key to a solution. Decades of research has shown that inmates who participate in prison education programs -- even if they fail to earn degrees -- are far more likely to stay out of prison once they are freed.

That prison education programs are highly cost effective is confirmed by a 2013 RAND Corporation study that covered 30 years of prison education research. Among other things, the study found that every dollar spent on prison education translated into savings of $4 to $5 on imprisonment costs down the line.

Other studies suggest that prisons with education programs have fewer violent incidents, making it easier for officials to keep order, and that the children of people who complete college are more likely to do so themselves, disrupting the typical pattern of poverty and incarceration.

Findings like these have persuaded corrections officials in both Democratic and Republican states to embrace education as a cost-effective way of cutting recidivism. But Republican legislators in New York -- which spends about $60,000 per inmate per year -- remain mired in know-nothingism and argue that spending public money on inmates insults taxpayers. They have steadfastly resisted Gov. Andrew Cuomo's common-sense proposal for making a modest investment in prison education programs that have already proved highly successful on a small scale in New York's prisons.

The goal of the program is to expand the number of inmates taking college courses to about 3,500 across much of the system from 1,000. The curriculum will be broad, covering science, math, philosophy, the social sciences and art. Among the schools that will participate are Cornell University, New York University, Mercy College and Bard College, which has run a highly regarded program since 2001. The recidivism rate is 4 percent for inmates who participate in the program and a mere 2 percent for those who earn degrees in prison, compared with about 40 percent for the New York State prison system as a whole.

Prison education programs were largely dismantled during the "tough on crime" 1990s, when Congress stripped inmates of the right to get the federal Pell grants that were used to pay tuition. The decision bankrupted many prison education programs across the country and left private donors and foundations to foot the bill for those that survived.
Continue reading the main story

Despite limited and unreliable funding, these programs have more than proved their value. New York lawmakers who continue to block funding for them are putting ideology ahead of the public interest.

1950's TV Show Predicts Trump

| | Comments (0)

This so stupid it bleeds

| | Comments (0)


Monthly Archives


Powered by Movable Type 4.12