ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- Making his first official trip to sub-Saharan Africa, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday demanded that Nigeria respect human rights as it cracks down on Islamist extremists and pledged to work hard in the coming months to ease tensions between Sudan and South Sudan. Kerry, attending the African Union's 50th anniversary, backed the Nigerian government's efforts to root out Boko Haram, an al-Qaida-linked radical sect. But he said there is no excuse for abuses by armed forces in Nigeria's long-neglected north, where President Goodluck Jonathan has declared emergency rule. "We defend the right completely of the government of Nigeria to defend itself and to fight back against terrorists," Kerry said. He added, however, that he has raised his concerns with Nigerian officials to insist on the military "adhering to the highest standards and not itself engaging in atrocities." "One person's atrocities do not excuse another's," said Kerry, who later made his case directly to Jonathan over lunch. "Revenge is not the motive. It's good governance, it's ridding yourself of a terrorist organization so that you can establish a standard of law that people can respect." Amnesty International says Nigeria's military has committed "grave human rights violations" over the last three years, including executions and kidnappings. It is reporting continued wrongdoing, while Human Rights Watch says satellite images showed "massive destruction of civilian property" in a military raid last week. Speaking to reporters alongside Ethiopian Foreign Minister Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Kerry also blamed Sudan's government for much of the tension along its volatile border with South Sudan. He says residents in the contested areas of Blue Nile and South Kordofan don't want to be subjected to strict Islamist rules. Both areas border the new nation of South Sudan, which gained independence in 2011 under an agreement that ended decades of civil war. Many residents are sympathetic to the South, and both areas have experienced regular violence in recent years. "There are very significant border challenges, but they're bigger than that," Kerry said. "You have people who for a long time have felt that they want their secular governance and their identity respected." "They don't want independence; they are not trying to break away from Sudan," he said. But he said the response from Sudan's government has been to "press on them through authoritarian means and violence an adherence to a standard that they simply don't want to accept with respect to Islamism." "That's the fundamental clash," Kerry said. He acknowledged, however, the North's concerns that the South is fueling rebels in the areas and said the U.S. would try to work with Ethiopia and other international partners to ease tensions. He said he'd soon appoint a new American envoy to both countries. Kerry met Sudan's foreign minister later Saturday. In Ethiopia's capital, Kerry also spoke with the U.N. and African Union chiefs and Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, whom he urged to make further economic reforms so that Congress can approve more U.S. aid to Egypt. Kerry departs Sunday to Jordan, where he'll attend a business conference and outline plans to help revitalize the Palestinian economy. He travels Monday to Paris for discussions about Syria with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, before returning to Washington after eight days overseas.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Friday he would definitely be running in 2016 -- for the U.S. Senate, that is. "For now, [what] we know for sure is we're going to run for the U.S. Senate," Paul said, according to a report from CNN. "The other decision can come later." That "other decision" involves a potential presidential run, which Paul has already been gearing up for with visits to big primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. During those appearances, Paul pushed for changes within the Republican party. "I do know the GOP needs to grow and I want to be part of growing the GOP," Paul said during a stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Paul's not the only Republican who may be vying for a shot at the Republican presidential candidacy in 2016. Reuters reported earlier: With no clear presidential front-runner in their party, Republicans are in shopping mode. They are looking for signs of a candidate who could unite the party's religious right, its more moderate establishment and its libertarian, anti-tax Tea Partiers in a way that Mitt Romney, the 2012 presidential nominee, could not do. And they are looking for someone who could appeal to - or at least not offend - Hispanics, non-white women and other parts of the electorate that went big for Obama and Democrats last year. That's why, just four months into Obama's second term, Paul is part of a stampede of Republican would-be contenders who are criss-crossing the country meeting voters, recruiting potential donors and currying favor with local politicians who could help determine their fate in a run for the White House.

When I approached Pittsburgh Steelers rookie quarterback Landry Jones for my short interview at the NFLPA Rookie Premiere last week, I noticed two things. First, the guy is approachable. Some athletes have this "don't even THINK about asking me a question that isn't about football or video games" vibe. That's not Jones. He's cool, calm and an open book. The second thing I noticed was a sentence scribbled on his hand. As my cohort for the day, SB Nation NFL editor Ryan Van Bibber, asked questions about Jones' new home in Pittsburgh and backing up Ben Roethlisberger, I stole glances at the words. I only made out "Philippians" and a couple numbers: He had written a passage from the New Testament on his hand.

Originally published by The Progressive. Last Monday evening, in a small dark theater space on Manhattan's Lower East Side, a group of young people gathered and started talking. They shared stories about growing up, trying to fit in or stand out among peers, school troubles and college dreams, boring jobs and squabbles with parents. They were just being themselves. But it was the bravest thing they had ever done. Before an intimate audience, the members of RAISE: Revolutionizing Asian American Immigrant Stories on the East Coast, proclaimed that they were undocumented. Fifteen members of this self-described "pan-Asian group of undocumented young adults on the East Coast" spoke about their experiences growing up: Americans, yet excluded from citizenship, their families fractured by fears of deportation, labor exploitation and an anxious search for identity. In their storytelling performance, #UndocuAsians, each youth described a different path to the United States. Some were too young to remember anything other than their bewilderment upon being dropped into an alien society. Some thought they were just on a vacation until they eventually realized those tourist visas had expired. All missed home. Each clung tightly to memories of far-away grandparents, aunts and cousins--sometimes with only a photograph to remind them of a family member who died before they could reunite. Razeen Zaman, 23, journeyed from Bangladesh to New York as a toddler, but only discovered her undocumented status as a teen when she started working and was denied a paycheck because she didn't have the right papers. Years later, when she graduated college, her ambitions sank into legal limbo, her future suspended indefinitely as she lacked the papers she needed to start a career. Neriel David Ponce, 18, remembered his enthusiasm when he came from the Philipinnes at five and settled in a modest Staten Island neighborhood. "I thought I was rich" he said. But toward the end of high school, he realized that his college dreams were falling apart, because his undocumented status foreclosed opportunities for financial aid most citizens take for granted. For Maritza Lam, 23, being undocumented meant dialing back on the "American dream." The Peruvian-Chinese-Queens transplant lives a reality worlds apart from the Asian American archetype of the model student. In her narrative, she explains, "I had to choose between using that money for school or for my family, and after almost two years of college, I decided my family needed it more. I had to leave school, and I started working in restaurants." Tony Choi, 24, spoke of the anxiety that haunted him during what should have been his bright college years. He moved across the country to attend college in Kentucky on a scholarship, but was followed by nightmares of getting snatched up by immigration agents. Meanwhile, cancer loomed over his mother, hundreds of miles away in New Jersey. "I was alone, I was isolated, and my mom was sick," he recalled. The consuming fears drove him to create an "escape kit," filled with first-aid materials and maps, just in case. In the end, Choi didn't run; he marched, joining other undocumented youth last year in a cross-country walk for immigration reform. Last June, a rush of grassroots campaigning helped push through a limited initiative to provide undocumented youth temporary legal status, but the future remains in limbo. He's still campaigning for legislation to enable students like him to permanently legalize, along with broader reform to let people like his mother work and raise their families here, free of fear. Why We Rise from Brian Redondo on Vimeo. Coordinated with support from the Asian American Legal Defense Fund, the project behind #UndocuAsians, Raise Our Story, is part of a movement to raise the visibility of undocumented Asian American immigrants in the immigration debate. While the massive population of migrants from Latin America occupies much of the political space in Washington, immigrants from Asia--many of whom came through visas rather than crossing the southwest border--are one of the fastest growing immigrant communities andmake up more than one million of the country's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. The political invisibility of Asian Americans goes beyond immigration policy. Historically, policymakers have ignored them as a voting bloc, the media has painted them as a two-dimensional "model minority" of assimilated middle-class newcomers, and their communities have been culturally distant from the world of lobbying and protests. But Asian American youth today are building activist networks and outgrowing the silence of past generations. In addition to shedding light on the economic and social hardships facing Asian American communities, the youth of RAISE understand their experience in a way their parents perhaps never could, having grown up at the pivot of many societies and generations, in a shrinking world of globalized media culture. Many of their generation represent a wave of refugees of the Asian financial crisis of the late-1990s, which devastated the region's "emerging" economies. Raise our Story reflects this fractious diasporic panorama, rendering the turmoil of globalization in a bold new language. Speaking in English inflected with notes of Tagalog, Chinese and other mother tongues, the storytellers' words posed a challenge both to the law and to the cultural grammar of "documented" America. At the same time, their polyglot voices affirmed a sense of justice that defies borders. "I think young people like us--we have a particular role," said Emily Seonhye Park, who came with her grandmother from South Korea at 15 but ended up living on her own at 17, following the abrupt separation of her family. As the audience shuffled out, she said that since young people often have more resources to defend themselves from deportation, "we can afford to be more courageous than our parents or our grandparents. So we should take advantage of that, and try to move forward, because, if we don't advocate for ourselves, who's gonna do it?"

Ryan Lizza, New Yorker

SAN FRANCISCO — American officials and corporate security experts examining a new wave of potentially destructive computer attacks striking American corporations, especially energy firms, say they have tracked the attacks back to Iran. The targets have included several American oil, gas and electricity companies, which government officials have refused to identify. The goal is not espionage, they say, but sabotage. Government officials describe the attacks as probes looking for ways to seize control of critical processing systems.

WASHINGTON — Haynes Johnson, a pioneering Washington journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the civil rights movements and migrated from newspapers to television, books and teaching, died Friday. He was 81. The Washington Post reported he died at Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Md. In a statement to the Post newsroom, Managing Editor Kevin Merida said Johnson died of a heart attack. Johnson was awarded a Pulitzer in 1966 for national reporting on the civil rights struggle in Selma, Ala., while with the Washington Evening Star. He spent about 12 years at the Star before joining its chief rival, The Washington Post, in 1969. Johnson was a columnist for the Post from 1977 to 1994. Dan Balz, the Post's senior political reporter, said Johnson was already a legend before they got to work together at the newspaper. "I don't say this lightly. He was a great journalist," Balz said Friday. "He had everything a good reporter should have, which was a love of going to find the story, a commitment to thorough reporting and then kind of an understanding of history and the importance of giving every story kind of the broadest possible sweep and context." Former Post executive editor Leonard Downie told the newspaper, "Haynes was a pioneer in looking at the mood of the country to understand a political race. Haynes was going around the country talking to people, doing portraits and finding out what was on people's minds. He was a kind of profiler of the country." The author, co-author or editor of 18 books, Johnson also appeared regularly on the PBS programs "Washington Week in Review" and "The NewsHour." He was a member of the "NewsHour" historians panel from 1994 to 2004. "I knew I wanted to write about America, our times, both in journalism and I also wanted to do books," he told C-SPAN in 1991. "I wanted to try to see if I could combine what I do as a newspaper person as well as step back a little bit and write about American life, and I was lucky enough to be able to do that." Johnson had taught at the University of Maryland since 1998. "Hundreds of our students learned how to cover public affairs from one of the best journalists America has ever known," Merrill College Dean Lucy Dalglish said in a written statement released by the university. "It was equally obvious to anyone who looked through the window that Haynes was in his element in the classroom. His entire face lit up when he was in the middle of a classroom discussion." Johnson had attended graduation ceremonies on Monday for the university's journalism college. Kathryn Oberly, Johnson's wife, told the school's Capital News Service that Johnson entered the hospital earlier this week for heart tests and died Friday morning of a heart attack. Johnson also had teaching stints at George Washington University, Princeton University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Pennsylvania. He was born in New York City on July 9, 1931. His mother, Emmie, was a pianist and his father, Malcolm Johnson, a newspaperman. The elder Johnson won a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Sun in 1949 for his reporting on the city's dockyards, and his series suggested the story told in the Oscar-winning film "On the Waterfront." Johnson studied journalism and history at the University of Missouri, graduating in 1952. After serving three years in the Army during the Korean War, he earned a master's degree in American history from the University of Wisconsin in 1956. Johnson resisted working in New York journalism to avoid being compared to his father. He worked for nearly a year at the Wilmington (Del.) News-Journal before joining the Star as a reporter. He received a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the civil rights struggle in Selma, Ala., where hundreds of marchers bound for the state capital of Montgomery were brutally beaten in March 1965 by state and local law officers. Martin Luther King, Jr., came to the city, and after a federal judge found that the demonstrators had a right to march, they completed their journey later that month. "Haynes had roots in the South," Balz said. "He was raised in New York, but he had Southern roots. He had a special appreciation for the civil rights struggle and what African Americans were going through." It wasn't long before Ben Bradlee, the newly appointed executive editor of The Washington Post, came calling. As Bradlee was seeking to elevate the newspaper, he recruited both Johnson and The New York Times' David S. Broder to strengthen the paper's political reporting. "He reached out, held out his hand, and I grabbed it, and that was it," Johnson recalled in Jeff Himmelman's 2012 biography of Bradlee. "There was no contract, nothing. It was just, `Come, we want you,' and I've never forgotten that." Johnson's books include "The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election," (2009) with Balz; "The Best of Times: America in the Clinton Years" (2001); and "The System: The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point" (1996) with Broder, who died two years ago. Johnson and Broder helped redefine Washington reporting, getting outside the Beltway to talk with voters about candidates and issues, rather than letting politicians dictate daily coverage. Both then wove that reporting into broader articles that examined the political process, the workings of government and the mood of the country. "Hayes was a giant," journalism professor and author Carl Sessions Stepp commented on the University of Maryland's website. "He had the mind of a scholar and the soul of a regular citizen, and nobody has ever better combined insider digging and outside-the-Beltway pulse-taking." Gene Roberts, who helped lead The Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Times and co-authored a book on media coverage of the civil rights movement, said he was amazed with Johnson's work ethic. "I think he was one of the most important reporters in the country during his journalistic career and later as he got more into books," Roberts said. "I was amazed. Most writers take a breather between books, but when he finished one book he always started immediately on another book." Johnson and Roberts taught together at the University of Maryland. Roberts said Johnson was an inspirational teacher and a serious historian. In recent years, he said, Johnson had been focused on having his father's "Waterfront" articles printed in book form. He had just begun work on a 19th book, looking at the speed with which breaking news was covered in the social media era, according to Capital News Service. Johnson married Julia Ann Erwin in 1954; they had three daughters and two sons and later divorced. In 2002, Johnson married Kathryn Oberly, an associate judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. ___ Zongker contributed from Washington. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE: Barry Schweid reported on foreign policy, the Supreme Court and national politics for The Associated Press in Washington for more than 50 years.

Last night there were two separate attacks on mosques in England. An incendiary device was brought into a mosque in Braintree Essex and in Gillingham Kent a window was broken and a bookcase with copies of the Koran sustained damage. This comes in the wake of protests by the far-right English Defense League. Protests, which, at times grew violent. Law enforcement tried to contain the protesters and there were multiple clashes. All of which is in response to a gruesome horrifying murder and act of terror on Wednesday, when a British soldier was run down by a car and then attacked with a meat cleaver. Lee Rigby, a father of a two-year-old, had been working in London as an Army recruiter. He was near his barracks when he was attacked. The mourning for Rigby is still fresh, as is the shock over the alleged suspects. Two British men who were shot by police and are now under armed guard at a hospital: NBC News understands that the two men are believed to be Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. One of the suspects is believed to have converted to radical Islam 10 years ago. And one of the suspects created a truly surreal scene in which he approached an eyewitness and evidently confessed and declared his motivations. Yesterday President Obama, in a wide ranging speech about counter-terrorism, said that "not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States." That applies here. Above all else, the perpetrators were two murderers, criminals, but what they did was indeed an act of terrorism and was meticulously planned to incite the kind of reaction it is now garnering from some quarters. Terrorism as a category has gotten massively stretched until it's almost lost its meaning in this day and age, but there's a real reason why it's a specific category. Terror does something particularly horrible to a populace. It is designed to incite a reaction, one in which people are put in their worst places as citizens. It's a place where they are acting out of fear. Psychologists have found that: "When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative." We know from our recent experience that 9/11 emboldened the right wing. What we're seeing in England right now in the wake of this vicious attack is that hard-right elements of British politics are gaining strength. The English Defense League didn't just stage those protests. It is making active use of social media. it has gotten thousands of additional "Likes" on Facebook alone. The English Defense League's website proclaims, "We Are At War," and its leader is getting a platform. What terror seeks to do is to polarize the world, so that everyone has to join different camps of extremists, and those extremists feed off each other in a symbiotic relationship. Terror seeks to provoke violence, provoke rage, provoke fear, provoke overreaction, provoke tribalism and knee-jerk reactions. And what it seeks to snuff out is empathy and reason and fidelity to principles of liberty, and calmness. But what made this crazy story so remarkable was a woman, Ingrid Loyau-Kennet, who confronted one of the alleged attackers. She was staring this man in the face and engaged him in a conversation before police arrived. She didn't cower and she didn't run and she didn't even succumb to rage. She just looked terror in the eyes and essentially said, calmly, you will lose. That is how we should respond to terrorism.

How do you sort out the kooks? With one simple question...

Some weeks, not much happens in political news, and other weeks it seems like almost too much happens. This was one of the latter types of week. While last week was a week of scandals on the television news, this week most of them faded into the background a bit. Benghazi, of course, is going to be Republicans' backup "scandal" right through the 2016 election, since they're not even really targeting Barack Obama anymore, but rather Hillary Clinton. The IRS scandal was briefly in the news as one woman refused to answer Congress' questions and then was put on administrative leave. But the scandal still hasn't touched the White House in any meaningful way, so it appears Republicans are somewhat losing interest in it, other than as a dandy way to raise campaign cash from their base, of course. The AP and Fox News scandal actually did get more scandalous this week, but Republicans aren't really interested in pushing this scandal, leaving it up to the media to protect one of their own. President Obama gave a major speech yesterday, the timing of which was assumably chosen to "pivot" off of all the scandals (and the non-scandals). He spoke on foreign policy, war, drones, and Guantanamo Bay. This was enough to enrage a few Republicans, which meant it certainly worked as a political distraction. It was also enough to enrage the co-founder of Code Pink, who made her displeasure known while Obama was trying to speak. Of course, there was a killer tornado in Oklahoma this week, which was the main story all week long in the news. Brian Williams rolled up his shirt sleeves and... well, to tell you the truth, I can't even bring myself to finish the rest of that sentence. Wolf Blitzer tried hard to get a survivor of the tornado to "thank the Lord" on air, until she politely informed him that she was an atheist -- which was an amusing takedown of a "journalist" trying to shove his own interpretation of a story onto an actual victim. The Senate actually accomplished a first step towards a comprehensive immigration bill, which didn't get the attention it really deserved. But we're at the start of a very long fight, so there will be time enough for the fur to fly later, I suppose. Gay spouses weren't included in the bill the committee approved, but they did weaken the rules on H-1B visas at the tech industry's bequest. Again, this is just the start of the horse trading on the bill, so who knows what it'll look like at the end of the process? The Boy Scouts decided that gays will now be allowed into scouting, right up until they turn 18 years old. This solution annoyed pretty much everybody, so we'll see whether they revisit this half-a-loaf decision later. What else? Anthony Weiner decided to run for New York City mayor, much to the delight of late night comics everywhere. He then immediately found himself in yet another photo scandal -- although a lot less titillating than his last one. On his website, he had a photo of a city skyline, but someone forgot to check what city, and it turned out to be Pittsburgh instead of The Big Apple. Whoops! OK, that's enough recapping, let's move on to the awards, shall we?   I can't help but think that one of the biggest reasons the politics of gay rights has moved forward in public acceptance so impressively has been due to the millions of gay people who, in the past few decades, have decided to "come out" to the world as who they are. It's a lot easier to demonize and scapegoat a group of people if there is no human face to confront. As more and more Americans got to know someone who is gay, it has become harder and harder to deny them their humanity and their rights. The reason I was thinking about this was news of two politicians who stood up for their own beliefs in different ways this week. Arizona state representative Juan Mendez led what could called an "atheist prayer," taking his turn at leading the pre-session prayer and instead making a powerful statement to his colleagues. Fair enough -- if he has to sit there and hear a prayer every day, then when it's his turn he should stand up for his own beliefs. Atheism is one of the last groups of people in America who still face criticism for their religious beliefs (or "areligious beliefs," perhaps), as evidenced by the fact that atheist boys still are excluded from the Boy Scouts, just as one example. The second politician who stood up this week was Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who went public with an article about how his life has immeasurably improved due to medical marijuana. I haven't checked, but I believe he is the first politician ever to do so in such a public fashion. Both of these men deserve at least an Honorable Mention this week, for putting a very human face on two groups of people that don't currently have many political spokesmen. Standing up in such a personal way will, hopefully, encourage more politicians of their stripe to follow in their footsteps. But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Representative Mark Pocan from Wisconsin and Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota, for introducing a constitutional amendment which would guarantee every American citizen the right to vote. Here is the proposed amendment, in its entirety: SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation. This is an absolutely brilliant political move, for a number of reasons. First, it points out to the public that there is no actual right to vote written into the Constitution. Oh, sure, it's implied, but it is not actually spelled out anywhere. Secondly, it is a proactive way to fight back against all the shenanigans Republicans are trying to pull on the state level in order to suppress Democratic voter turnout. Many of these laws would be tossed in the garbage can if a voting rights amendment is passed. But the really brilliant thing about the proposed amendment is the fact that it'll put Republicans between a rock and a hard place. How can they justify being against the right to vote? It's pretty inconceivable a political position to take, really. Which makes it a dandy "wedge issue" for Democrats, in much the same way that Republicans used a flag burning amendment a few decades ago. There really is no political downside to supporting a voting rights amendment, no matter how you look at it. If enough powerful Democrats got on board with the proposal and made as much noise in the media as they could possibly manage on the issue, it would force Republicans to either get behind the idea or explain to their constituents why they were against supporting the right to vote. For coming up with such a brilliant idea, the least we can do is to give Representatives Ellison and Pocan a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. As usual, we will provide their contact info below, but if you support their idea what you should really do is contact your own members of Congress and ask them to support the proposal as well. This is a great idea, and it needs all the support and attention it can muster. [Congratulate Representative Keith Ellison on his House contact page, and Representative Mark Pocan on his House contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]   The Obama administration's "War On Leakers" has now officially morphed into a "War On Journalists." On leaks, the Obama team has brought more prosecutions than all other presidents combined -- twice as many, in fact. But while Attorney General Eric Holder recused himself from the case involving the Associated Press' phone records, his signature was discovered this week on an application for a subpoena for a Fox News reporter's emails and phone records. The subpoena charged the Fox reporter, essentially, with spying. The Justice Department didn't really have any intention of prosecuting him, they just wanted to root around in his emails and phone records to pin charges on the government employee who was his source. This is disgraceful. This is an abuse of power. The subpoena on the Fox reporter was nothing short of a fishing expedition to prosecute yet another leak case. President Obama now says he wants a federal shield law for reporters, even though he helped kill the last such effort in Congress. The more I learn about Eric Holder and how he operates the United States Department of Justice, the less I trust him. Which has earned him his sixth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. [Contact the White House on their contact page, to let them know what you think of Eric Holder's actions.]   Volume 259 (5/24/13) Kind of a mixed bag of talking points this week. Not much else to say about them, so I'll just let them speak for themselves.      Fixing the IRS This storyline needs to be turned around. "The Obama White House was not responsible for the problems at the IRS. The Obama administration conducted the investigation which uncovered the problems, in fact. And since the inspector general's report was released, Obama has been fixing the problems at the IRS. Three people have been removed from duty already, and I wouldn't be surprised if more followed. But again -- Obama did not create the problems, he is in fact fixing the problems."      Congress mad at themselves Apple was on the hotseat this week, testifying about how they pay their taxes and use legal loopholes to avoid paying other taxes. But this is just laughable, really. "I noticed that quite a few members of Congress had lots of fun grandstanding on the subject of corporate taxes, as they served up some grilled Apple this week. What a joke! What blatant hypocrisy! Nobody suggested that Apple was breaking any laws -- just that they were using loopholes in the tax code. Legal loopholes. Loopholes, in fact, that were written into the tax code by Congress. Why were these loopholes created? Because Congress created them for their corporate buddies. And now they're outraged that these loopholes are being used? Please. I mean, the stench of hypocrisy is so strong on this one it makes your eyes water. If Congress was truly outraged at the practice, then they would fix the loopholes. It's as simple as that. Although I certainly didn't notice any of them admitting it during the hearing."      Immigration moves forward This effort is going to require a lot of steady pushing, for many months to come. "There was some very good news in the Senate this week, as the immigration bill was approved in committee and will now move to the floor for debate and a vote. I am optimistic about its chances, because the committee already dealt with 300 amendments, many of which were designed to kill the bill entirely. None of these amendments made it through. There will likely be more of these introduced on the Senate floor, but so far it looks like the bipartisan coalition which wrote the bill has held together. This is good news, and it improves the chances that we can pass a comprehensive immigration bill this year."      Youth discrimination wrong, adult discrimination still OK The Boy Scouts took half of a step this week. It's tough, because the half step was in the right direction, but it just didn't go far enough. "While I applaud the Boy Scouts of America for finally scrapping its policy of discriminating against gay youth, I have to at the same time express disappointment that they are still apparently fine with discriminating against gay adults. This was a historic step for the Boy Scouts to take, and it's going to be contentious for some time to come among some of their supporters. But by trying to thread the needle and have it both ways, the Boy Scouts are sending an awfully mixed message. They're saying 'we welcome gay youth to be scouts, but when you turn 18, you'll have to leave scouting, sorry.' Maybe next time around, the Boy Scouts will take a more consistent stand against discrimination. They're headed in the right direction, but they still have one last step to take."      Hypocrisy on relief What goes around comes around, eh? "The two senators from Oklahoma both actually opposed aid money for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and I notice that they are trying to split hairs as the rest of the Senate contemplates aid money for the victims of the devastating tornado. I would hope that being on the other side of the issue might actually teach these two Republicans a lesson about compassion. When a disaster strikes, Americans help each other. When a disaster strikes, politicians should realize this basic fact instead of playing political games for months. Sandy victims had to wait far too long for Republicans to act, and I sincerely hope this won't happen for the tornado victims."      War On Women update This week's installment in the "War On Women," brought to you (as always) by the Republican Party. "Republicans are supposed to be against big government and the nanny state and all of that, except when it comes to women's health, of course. On that particular subject, it is 'government knows best.' Representative Louie Gohmert actually admitted it, in the midst of telling a woman who had aborted her brain-dead fetus that she really should have just gone through with the pregnancy, and I quote: 'So these are ethical issues, they're moral issues, they're difficult issues, and the parents should certainly be consulted.' There's the Republican attitude right there for you: the parents 'should certainly be consulted,' but the decision should be made by old male politicians, not the parents or the doctor. So much for being against big government, eh?"      Fox News, always classy This last one I had to throw in, just because defending a Fox News reporter earlier was so tough to do. "While I can sympathize with Fox News against the Justice Department's overreach, I have to say that this should not be read as supporting Fox News in general. In fact, Fox makes it easy to condemn their entire organization when they allow on-air personalities to incite their audience to punch anyone who voted for Barack Obama in the face. This is merely this week's most outrageous thing said on Fox, I would ask you to note. So while I can defend a Fox reporter on principle against the Department of Justice, I certainly cannot condone any of their statements or actions in general. I would also call on Fox to immediately fire Andrea Tantaros for saying such a thing on the air."   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigantBecome a fan of Chris on Huffington PostFull archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.comAll-time award winners leaderboard, by rank  

On Friday, Elite New York City private school Horace Mann posted a letter to its website, confirming allegations of sexual abuse of students, and addressing how it handled the situation after it became public last summer. While the letter "sincerely apologize[d]" for the abuse, it did not call for an independent investigation of the incidents. Signed by the head of school and chair of the board of trustees, the letter comes almost exactly one year after The New York Times uncovered reports of sexual abuse taking place against the school's students from the 1960s through the 1990s. The letter outlined a number of initiatives the school had taken to “resolve never to forget this portion of our past and reiterate our commitment to the safety of today's students.” Through speaking with former victims, the school decided that allegations of abuse were true. The perpetrators of the alleged crimes had worked at the school but were never prosecuted, due to statute of limitations rules. From the letter: Based on what was reported by the Bronx [district attorney]'s office in its public statement of April 26th and what was learned through the mediation process, it is clear that between 1962 and 1996, former teachers and administrators in fact did abuse, in various degrees, students at Horace Mann School. The letter states that over the course of the past year, the school has worked with the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Bronx County district attorney's office to “put in place revised and new policies specific to child abuse prevention and reporting,” in addition to conducting school-wide safety training for students and employees. The school said it has reached settlements with 31 former victims. According to the letter, the school will appoint a sexual abuse survivor to the Head of School Committee, a body that serves in an advisory role to the head of school and chair of the trustee board. The school also removed the title and position of trustee emeritus, as one of the teachers accused of quieting allegations had formerly held that position. Joseph Cumming, a former victim of abuse, told The Wall Street Journal that while he appreciated the initiatives outlined in the letter, he wished the school would conduct an independent investigation. Horace Mann victims have previously asked the school to "investigate how, despite repeated complaints about them, teachers there were able to continue abusing students," according to the New York Times. “The school is effectively saying no to our primary request,” Cumming told the Wall Street Journal. Horace Mann did not respond to requests for comment.

Today was a sort-of victory for LGBT youth: the Boy Scouts of America lifted the ban on LGBT scouts today, after gathering over a million signatures to allow homosexual scouts to join. From the Huffington Post: The Boy Scouts of America have reportedly voted 61-38 to allow gay Scouts. According to multiple media sources, the scouting organization has chosen to eliminate sexual orientation as youth membership criterion. Under the new ruling, gay Scout leaders are still prohibited from serving. I say it's a "sort of" victory because I'm conflicted in my response to this new ruling. Obviously, this is huge progress for the group and great news for LGBT youth hoping to join the Boy Scouts - this outdated and discriminatory requirement is no longer a problem, truly a "better late than never" decision. Also a victory? The decision inspired the close minded, "morally straight" scouts and scout leaders in the On My Honor network to quit the Boy Scouts of America, and convene in Kentucky to consider "the creation of a new character development organization for boys." While these victories are hard-earned and fantastic to hear, the Boy Scouts of America still aren't allowing for LGBT den leaders, and do not allow for older LGBT scouts to be included in programs like Venture, a co-ed program for scouts that outgrow the traditional troops. This ruling is the Boy Scouts saying "It's okay to be gay, unless you're an adult." This sort of restriction bars young scouts from experiencing part of the real world, stops scouts from meeting people with different viewpoints and lifestyles of their own, and keeps scouts from learning that being LGBT is not a big deal. To me, it implies that being gay is okay until you're 18 - an adult - as if being LGBT is something childish that scouts will outgrow. Even more, by barring LGBT adults from participating in scouting, the Boy Scouts of America are allowing LGBT youth but giving them no LGBT role models to look up to. How wonderful would it be for a scout who is LGBT, to have a successful and strong den leader who is just like them? To see that being LGBT is okay, and that they can be strong, independent and successful? And how great would it be for young straight boys to have an LGBT den leader to show them that being homosexual isn't a bad thing, and that LGBT people are just like everyone else? And how is it even an argument, that LGBT leaders and scout members are such a detriment to the organization, such harm to other straight members of the troop, when the Girl Scouts of America have long since proven this wrong? When the Boy Scouts were excluding LGBT youth and leaders, the Girl Scouts were admitting everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or religion. From TIME Magazine: In their statement of purpose called "What we stand for," the Girl Scouts explicitly reject discrimination of any kind and consider sexual orientation, "a private matter for girls and their families to address." Noting their affirmation of freedom of religion, a founding principle of American life, the Girl Scouts "do not attempt to dictate the form or style of a member's worship" and urge "flexibility" in reciting the Girl Scout Promise. (They are encouraged to substitute the word "God" for something that's more in line with their own spiritual practice.) It's an arresting contrast to the Boy Scouts of America, who in addition to excluding gays also refuse to hire non-believers. The religion factor in the Boy Scouts' organization has a lot to do with its sponsorship: about 70% of sponsorship funding for the Boy Scouts of America comes from religiously affiliated groups (about half of those groups are Mormon), with the other 30% coming from corporations. The Girl Scouts are funded by corporate backers like Coca-Cola and MetLife. Aside from religion, I believe the diversity and acceptance of the Girl Scouts of America has to do with its founding: the Girl Scouts of America were formed in 1912 to teach "girls - all girls" to be independent, to make their own decisions, to "help people at all times," to dream big, to be as ambitious as the boys, and to forge a path for themselves in their professional and personal lives. The Girl Scouts were formed because young women were being excluded from the boys' club - so to exclude girls would be hypocritical and counter to its purpose. Two great examples of this inclusion have been the integration of African American Girl Scouts as early as the 1950s, and the recent inclusion of transgender Girl Scout Bobby Montoya showed. While the Girl Scouts encouraged girls to think critically and to consider others' ideas, the Boy Scouts encouraged boys to think as a team and subscribe to traditionally masculine "duties," an idea growing more outdated as men and women in America grow into less traditional gender roles - a doctrine which makes it more difficult to fully integrate everyone, including LGBT scouts and non-religious scouts, and provide scouts a more accurate picture of the world outside the den. I think that the inclusion of LGBT scouts in the Boy Scouts of America is a belated, but fantastic step forward. And I do believe that eventually, the Boy Scouts of America will have to include LGBT den leaders. But I think we need to stress to people that both of these additions are good things, that they are signs of a changing and more inclusive nation, and that they will show today's young men that being gay is okay, and will grow more accepting leaders of tomorrow. Just like the Girl Scouts have been doing all this time.

Despite a near-constant flow of customers at its Huntington Beach storefront, Patient Med Aid struggles with many of the most basic business tasks. It can't accept credit or debit cards for customer transactions. It has to pay vendors in cash. It uses cashier's checks to pay its taxes. The newly opened medical marijuana dispensary, like many clinics in the controversial industry, has been turned away by numerous banks, which refuse to open accounts or process transactions for cannabis companies. "I really wish we could have a regular bank account," said Marla James, a medical marijuana activist who serves as the dispensary's patient coordinator. "Then we could buy office supplies without getting a cashier's check." They also wouldn't have to keep sending customers without cash to an ATM down the street in a Jack in the Box restaurant. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have approved to varying degrees the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Two states -- Colorado and Washington -- also have legalized recreational use. But since the substance remains illegal under federal law, most major banks, credit unions and credit card companies will not do business with pot proprietors. That has been a buzz kill for dispensaries, many of which must deal with the risks of running a cash-only business. The U.S. medical marijuana industry is projected to quadruple to $6 billion by 2018, and private capital, through both business loans and equity investments, is beginning to fill the void left by banks that are unwilling to extend financing. But without access to many basic banking services, budding entrepreneurs are facing hurdles in getting new ventures off the ground. "The first thing a normal business would do is go out and open a bank account," said Robert Frichtel, managing partner of Medical Marijuana Business Exchange, which helps dispensary owners connect with service providers. "The industry has been effectively cut off from the banking sector. That creates all kinds of problems." Severe consequences The largest banks in Orange County, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Chase Bank, all have policies against providing services to cannabis clinics. Likewise, major credit card companies such as Visa have bans on opening merchant accounts. "We need to make sure that we are compliant with federal law," said Mary Jane Rogers, a spokeswoman for Chase. Banks that associate with marijuana businesses could run afoul of a number of laws, including conspiracy and anti-money laundering statutes, said Jim Dowling, an expert in financial regulatory compliance and the former anti-money laundering adviser to the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy. "They shouldn't be doing any business with medical marijuana companies," he said. "Banks are examined by federal regulators, they have to comply with federal law, and federal law supersedes state law 100 percent of the time." Institutions that fail to comply could lose their federal insurance or charter to do business, while individual bankers could be indicted. Though the government has not taken action against many individuals to date, Dowling said, "I think they are going to start going after bankers." Banks may also risk financial losses. In late 2011, U.S. attorneys in California launched a coordinated effort to seize marijuana dispensaries across the state. In the central district, which includes Orange and Los Angeles counties, U.S. attorney P. Greg Parham has filed 30 civil forfeiture actions against pot clinics. The campaign has driven a wedge between banks and the marijuana industry because financial institutions that hold stakes in these properties do not want to lose the assets, Parham said. "The word is getting out now and I think many banks are far more vigilant in making sure that they don't have properties or loans that are at risk," Parham said. "Most if not all financial institutions in the state are now very cognizant of the fact that they should not be allowing loans to be made on properties where they know or should know that the person taking out the loan is going to use the property to conduct some type of marijuana business." Alternative options It wasn't always this way. For a number of years, experts said, many banks were willing to look the other way with pot businesses. That changed abruptly as the federal crackdown began. "We saw more and more banks giving either short notice or no notice and canceling their accounts," said Frichtel of Medical Marijuana Business Exchange. Todd Smith, director of Euclid Medical Center, said his Garden Grove dispensary has been turned down by numerous banks and credit-card processing companies in recent years. "The feds are trying to make this very difficult," he said. There are workarounds, however, that allow dispensaries to operate like mainstream retail businesses without the benefit of bank assistance. Many dispensaries have installed private ATMs on site. And a growing number of clinics are using Square, an inexpensive card-swiping device that allows businesses to accept debit and credit cards through some smartphones and tablet computers. There are also a handful of service providers looking to fill the void. Guardian Data Systems, which launched last year, uses partnerships with offshore banks to offer credit card processing to high-risk merchants, such as marijuana dispensaries, payday lenders and bail bondsmen. Some pot clinics are still able to open basic deposit accounts by withholding their business plan or finding a banker that is friendly to the industry. Still, most dispensaries primarily operate on a cash basis. "This type of business is cash and carry," said Marla James, the activist who works with Patient Med Aid, a cannabis collective. The collective, which opened a retail storefront in a bright yellow building along Pacific Coast Highway in February, was started to provide mostly older cancer and AIDS patients with access to alternative medicine. About 20 percent of its patients, which already number about 1,300, receive marijuana for free because they cannot afford it, James said. James, diabetic and legally blind, has used medical marijuana to kick an OxyContin addiction following a bout with flesh-eating bacteria, and to deal with lingering effects after her lower left leg was amputated. Through her work with the clinic and other organizations, she has become a vocal advocate for the industry. "This is something I have a personal stake in," she said. Patient Med Aid has enjoyed considerable growth and even managed to open a depository account with "a small credit union," James said. But it still can't process card transactions. Dealing in cash creates a variety of problems for dispensaries, including record-keeping and security concerns. It is not uncommon for dispensaries to have two safes in the back: one for marijuana and one for cash. They can't be stored together, experts said, because then the money will start to smell like pot. "I've been in several rooms that have a million dollars lying around," said Brendan Kennedy, who has begun investing in the cannabis industry and has met with numerous businesses. Private capital Kennedy, a 40-year-old Yale grad and former banker, recently started Privateer Holdings, one of the country's first private equity firms dedicated to investing in the cannabis industry. The idea for the fund came about when he was an executive with Silicon Valley Bank. His meetings with entrepreneurs in various industries exposed him to the largely untapped but growing cannabis market. With two partners, Kennedy started the firm and has used his connections to raise about $5 million for what he called "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity without a lot of competition." He's looking primarily at ancillary businesses that don't actually handle pot. Privateer's first investment was the acquisition of Leafly, a website started in Newport Beach that offers information on marijuana strains. Frichtel, who has been hearing from well-heeled individuals interested in capitalizing on the market's growth potential, said most investors would rather give loans to cannabis companies than take equity investments, which can be risky in such a volatile industry and have less chance of earning a decent return. "There is money looking around, trying to figure out how to participate," he said. Kennedy said most cannabis entrepreneurs have to use their savings or personal credit cards to get companies off the ground. Perhaps the biggest problem he encounters is the lack of access to banking services, which he called critical to the successful growth of the market. "I cannot emphasize just how big of a problem it is," he said. Contact the writer: rclough@ocregister.com or 714-796-7922 ___ (c)2013 The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.) Visit The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.) at www.ocregister.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly True | Sander Levin says IRS’s inspector general said there was ‘no political motivation’ and ‘no outside influence’ to target tea party groups Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree: The IRS screwed up, big time, when it watched for phrases like "tea party" to trigger extra scrutiny of groups seeking tax-exempt status. But there’s a partisan disagreement over whether it was merely an ill-conceived time-saver for overworked Ohio staffers or a sinister White House plot to hamstring conservative groups before an election. ("It's the IRS targeting-gate!" said New York Republican Tom Reed.) Rep. Sander Levin, a long-serving Democrat who’s the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, said after a May 17 hearing that evidence is ... >> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | Barack Obama says since he took office, “there have been no large-scale attacks on the United States” President Barack Obama talked about terrorism and drones in a major speech on May 23, 2013. At one point, Obama said "there have been no large-scale attacks on the United States" since the start of his presidency, adding, "Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11." We wondered whether he was accurate when he said "there have been ... >> More

WASHINGTON -- Failure is OK, but continuing to work hard is more important, Michelle Obama said Friday. That was the message the first lady delivered to students at an elementary school where the arts are being used to help boost student performance. The school is located in Anacostia, one of the city's poorest neighborhoods. Mrs. Obama said failure was not an impediment for her and shouldn't be for them. She also encouraged the students to "try new things and not be afraid to fail, because we have all failed." "You're looking at the first ... I have failed at things. Things have been really hard for me at times," Mrs. Obama said at Savoy Elementary School. "But all I had to do was keep going and keep working hard." To further illustrate her point, she pointed to Kerry Washington, star of ABC's "Scandal," as another example. Mrs. Obama said the actress, who was sitting in the audience for the visit, is a big star these days because she chose to keep perfecting her craft instead of becoming discouraged by rejection during her career. "She spent a lot of time practicing and working and trying out for things and having people tell her `no,' `no, thank you,' `you're not good enough, you're not pretty enough,'" the first lady said. "Could you imagine somebody telling Kerry that she wasn't pretty enough, she wasn't tall enough, she was too short? That's all performing is, is rejection." Washington, who is the school's arts ambassador, later said she wasn't sure how that came to be. "It might have something to do with playing Olivia Pope and having a principal Pope," she joked. Olivia Pope is her character on "Scandal" and Patrick Pope is the school's principal. ___ Online: Turnaround Arts: http://turnaroundarts.pcah.gov ___ Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap

An outspoken supporter of the Boy Scouts of America's (BSA) ban on gay participants has vowed to withdraw his own sons out of the scouting organization. In an editorial for CNN, John Stemberger called the BSA's May 23 announcement that sexual orientation would be eliminated as youth membership criterion would eventually "lead to myriad bad consequences." "First, the new BSA policy is logically incoherent and morally and ethically inconsistent. The BSA had never discriminated against homosexuals," Stemberger, who is an Eagle Scout, writes. "The BSA membership application did not ask about sexual orientation, and there has never been a witch hunt in the BSA to find or remove its gay members." Before referring to the Boy Scouts as "one of the great jewels of American culture," Stemberger continues: "Most important, the new policy robs parents of Boy Scouts, like me, of the sole authority to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their kids. Parents should have the exclusive right to raise issues about sex and sexuality with their children in their own time and in their own way, in the privacy of their homes, not brought up by other older boys around a campfire. Allowing open homosexuality injects a sensitive and highly charged political issue into the heart of the BSA, against the wishes of the vast majority of parents." You can read the rest of the editorial here. Stemberger is also president of On My Honor, which is described as "a coalition of concerned parents, Scout Leaders, Scouting donors, Eagle Scouts and others" who are "united" in opposing "open homosexuality" in the Boy Scouts. Likely to defend Stemberger's statements is the National Organization of Marriage's (NOM) Brian Brown, who said the Boy Scouts' decision to admit openly gay Scouts would end up "sexualizing the organization." "All of this is happening not because of a true grassroots demand of gay youth to be part of the organization but by an orchestrated political effort by gay activists who want to punish any group or organization that does not embrace homosexuality," Brown wrote in a statement. "It's the beginning of the end for what once was one of America's noblest organizations."

Amid growing speculation that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is testing GOP presidential waters in Iowa and elsewhere, progressive activists warned Thursday at a rally in West Des Moines that a Walker presidency would be “terrifying" and disastrous to middle class families.

Klein & Soltas, Washington PostObamacare got some very good news on Thursday.In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level "silver" plan "” which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary's expected health costs "” on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually. More recently, a report from the consulting firm Milliman predicted it would carry a $450 monthly premium. Yesterday, we got the real numbers. And they're lower than anyone thought.

Ross Kaminsky, TASOnly in the United States Congress could a legislative provision entitled “Market-Based H-1B Visa Limits” actually mean that “the number of visas calculated under subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year shall not be less than 110,000 or more than 180,000.”If you read even a few pages of the so-called Gang of Eight immigration bill trudging its way through Congress—a bill that contains many provisions as horrendous as that one—you can’t help but think of Otto von Bismarck’s famous sausage-making analogy and wonder...