The Serious Side - part 8

[size=48]Russian Missile Strikes, Destroys Chef José Andrés' World Central Kitchen Hub in Kharkiv, Ukraine
Four staff were wounded in the attack that destroyed Chef José Andrés' World Central Kitchen Hub in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on Saturday
By Jen JuneauApril 18, 2022 10:38 AM[/size]

[url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/link/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.com%2Ffood%2Fchef-jose-andres-world-central-kitchen-hub-destroyed-by-russia-missile-kharkiv-ukraine%2F%3Futm_source%3Dpinterest.com%26utm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_campaign%3Dsocial-share-article%26utm_content%3D20220419%26utm_term%3Dundefined&media=https%3A%2F%2Fimagesvc.meredithcorp.io%2Fv3%2Fmm%2Fimage%3Furl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F20%2F2021%2F02%2F15%2Fjose-andres-1-2000.jpg&description=Russian Missile Strikes%2C Destroys Chef Jos%C3%A9 Andr%C3%A9s%27 World Central Kitchen Hub in Kharkiv%2C Ukraine][/url]

José Andrés
 
| CREDIT: PAUL MORIGI/GETTY IMAGES
Chef José Andrés' World Central Kitchen hub in Kharkiv, Ukraine, has been destroyed by a missile amid the country's ongoing Russian invasion.
In a video posted to Twitter on Saturday, WCK's CEO Nate Mook shared footage of the aftermath and the "tremendous amounts of damage," saying that four staff members were injured.
"Just a tremendous amount of carnage left behind for no reason," Mook added. "In this area, there are offices, there are residences. People live here, people work here, people cook here and that's it ... absolutely horrific brutality."
Sharing that the affected staff members are at the hospital, Mook said, "Nobody was killed in the restaurant, but we are told that one person was killed in this strike."

Andrés, 52, wrote in a retweet of the video, "Food heroes them all! Relief that so far that just were 4 wounded ... praying for them! @WCKitchen #ChefsForUkraine we are #FoodFighters but the Russian attacks must stop against civilian buildings and markets and churches and schools etc."
Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human-interest stories.

RELATED: Chef José Andrés Sets Up World Central Kitchen on Ukraine-Poland Border to Feed Refugees
Mook shared an update on Sunday, saying "the restaurant team is moving all food products & non-damaged equipment to another kitchen location in Kharkiv. The injured staff are doing well — and all the team here wants to continue cooking."

"To everyone caring and sending good wishes to the team in Kharkiv, thank you, the injured are fine, and everyone is ready and willing to start cooking in another location," Andrés said in a retweet of the latter post. "#FoodFighters@WCKitchen All our friends are TRUE heroes! Many ways to fight, we do it with food! :punch::shallow_pan_of_food:"
The attack comes almost two months after Andrés announced that his nonprofit organization, WCK, would be at the Ukraine-Poland border "delivering meals" in an effort to aid to the people of Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict with Russia.
RELATED VIDEO: Chef José Andrés Delivers Pizzas to National Guard, Police After U.S. Capitol Riots







[size=12]00:00
01:57




Watched
Russia's attack on Ukraine continues after their forces launched a large-scale invasion on Feb. 24 — the first major land conflict in Europe in decades. Details of the fighting change by the day, but hundreds of civilians have already been reported dead or wounded, including children. Millions of Ukrainians have also fled, the United Nations has said.
"You don't know where to go, where to run, who you have to call. This is just panic," Liliya Marynchak, a 45-year-old teacher in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, told PEOPLE of the moment her city was bombed — one of numerous accounts of bombardment by the Russians.
The invasion, ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, has drawn condemnation around the world and increasingly severe economic sanctions against Russia.
With NATO forces massing in the region around Ukraine, various countries have also pledged aid or military support to the resistance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for peace talks — so far unsuccessful — while urging his country to fight back.
Putin insists Ukraine has historic ties to Russia and he is acting in the best security interests of his country. Zelenskyy vowed not to bend.
"Nobody is going to break us, we're strong, we're Ukrainians," he told the European Union in a speech in the early days of the fighting, adding, "Life will win over death. And light will win over darkness."
The Russian attack on Ukraine is an evolving story, with information changing quickly. Follow PEOPLE's complete coverage of the war here, including stories from citizens on the ground and ways to help.[/size]

https://people.com/crime/texas-school-shooting-uvalde-multiple-hospitalized-suspect-custody/

[size=48]18 Children and 1 Teacher Killed in Texas Elementary School Shooting
The suspect, an 18-year-old male, is believed to have been killed by police, Gov. Greg Abbott said
By Greg HanlonMay 24, 2022 03:26 PM
FB[url=https://www.twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=18 Children and 1 Teacher Killed in Texas Elementary School Shooting]Tweet[/url]
More





Watched
UPDATE: 20 people are dead — 18 students and a teacher — during a shooting Tuesday at an elementary school in Uvalde.
Initially Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott announced that 14 students and their teacher were gunned down in their classroom but later Tuesday Sgt. Erick Estrada of the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed the death toll was 18 students, according to CNN. The shooter has also shot his grandmother but she had survived the attack.
According to Abbott, the shooter, identified as Uvalde resident Salvador Romas, is dead. The shooter opened fire at Robb Elementary School at about 11:30 a.m. after abandoning his vehicle, and it is believed police killed him.
Police said at a Tuesday press conference they believe the shooter, who according to Abbott had a handgun and possibly a rifle, acted alone. The children killed were in the second, third and fourth grades, police said.

Uvalde is a small city of about 16,000 residents, approximately 85 miles west of San Antonio.
"He shot and killed — horrifically, incomprehensibly — 14 students and killed a teacher. [The shooter], he himself is deceased," Abbott said. "And it is believed that responding officers killed him."
[/size]

Abbott also said the shooter shot his own grandmother, but did not give an update on her condition, reports ABC News.
University Health San Antonio tweeted there are two patients — a 66-year-old woman and a 10-year-old girl — who are in critical condition.
Abbott said two responding officers were injured and expected to survive, according to ABC.
Congressman Tony Gonzales, who represents the area, said in a statement, "I am heartbroken for our South Texas community. It is devastating when our innocent children become the victims of senseless violence. We are devastated."

Calls to Combat Gun Violence: 'We Need Change'

In 2020, firearms became the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the U.S., surpassing motor vehicle crashes, according to The New England Journal of Medicine.
The Newtown Action Alliance, a gun violence prevention organization launched after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., in which 26 innocent people were killed, issued a statement on Twitter saying, "We are devastated. Our hearts are breaking for Robb Elementary & Uvalde families & community. We are angry. These shootings are preventable but those whose stood with the NRA after Sandy Hook nearly 10 years ago did absolutely nothing to prevent these tragedies. We need change."
March for Our Lives, the gun violence prevention organization founded by survivors of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in which 17 people were murdered, wrote in a tweet: "Our hearts are utterly and completely broken. You can't stop a bullet with thoughts and prayers. To honor those lost and save countless lives, we need action. We're dying while we wait for it."
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Biden will speak later this evening. Biden has ordered flags to be flown at half-staff at federal government buildings.
"His prayers are with the families impacted by this awful event," Jean-Pierre tweeted.
The mass shooting comes less than two weeks after an alleged white supremacist killed 10 people inside a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y. Authorities have said the Buffalo shooting was a hate crime in which the suspect targeted Black people.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

---

[size=36]Popular in Crime[/size]

Thank you for posting this, Annemarie. Words fail me.

There are no words - or should I say no more words - because that's all we've been getting for years. Words, words and more words. Nothing changes. This is not the country I grew up in, and to be honest, if things don't change, it is not a country where I want to live. We are the shame of the world.

I have just read that an hour ago the Republicans have rejected the Democrats call for renewed legislation - but Mitch McConnell says he 'might' do something...........

    I hate to say this, but from this side of the pond, I get the feeling that this is all about money

Oh, I  have just seen that the NRA have donated one and a half million dollars to Ron Johnson, a Republican

No thanks needed Pan. You are so right this is all about money the republicans don't care about anything but money.

I feel like the change has to come from gun owners saying this is enough fix this. But it won't happen because they are
so damned stupid .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHP98QVtQKE

PAN - He speaks for most of us. Those senators are so afraid of losing NRA funding and the votes of their "base" of fascist gun-nuts that they won't do anything. They're blaming this on  mental health problems, the police, an unlocked door - everything but the gun problem. The Republican party is the real problem.

In 30 years my gun has never leapt out of the closet and killed anyone. Why isn't alcohol outlawed because I've seen more people killed by drunk drivers than I have from gun violence.
Now before you all get your knickers in a wad, I am horrified by the school shooting myself but punishing all law abiding gun owners due to a morally bankrupt nutcase isn't the answer.

Ida, what do you think the answer is?

    https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2022/0525/1301188-us-gun-violence/

    Gun fatalities in the US so far this year:17,000

Ida - I don't believe anyone wants to punish law abiding gun owners, but I don't believe the founding fathers envisioned anything like the AR-15 or multiple-shot magazines, and wouldn't approve of them being readily available to anyone who wanted one. In the 2nd Amendment they proposed "a well regulated militia", which would translate today to the  National Guard.

What we have instead is a free-for-all, where pretty much anyone who wants a gun can get one. We need to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars or alcohol or cigarettes. Use common sense. Raise the age limit for buying a gun, so boys whose brains haven't matured yet can't buy them. Require background checks and a waiting period. Red-flag people with mental health issues. None of this would penalize responsible gun owners.

I would never own a gun or allow one in my home. I think it's dangerous and accidents are too likely to happen. I don't understand how, if a gun is properly secured and in a different location from the ammunition (as is recommended for safety's sake) it will be available to use in situation where it might help. How would you be able to get the gun and load it before it was too late to use it? I fear it is more likely that it would be found and used by a child who didn't know what they were doing.

And why is it possible for an 18 year old to buy an automatic weapon - but not be allowed to      buy a drink!?

    The answer might be of course that the drinks industry don't give the politicians millions like      the NRA do....

     Here's George's friend on the subject:
    
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF_GofUF_y4

PAN - The link didn't work for me, so I typed in the address and got a page full of videos. I'm guessing you mean Jimmy Kimmel? I had seen his monologue a couple of times already, but it still hits hard.

Did you know that one of the largest television networks in Texas didn't broadcast his monologue, supposedly due to "technical difficulties"? Kimmel says he'll be looking into it. This country is going to hell.

I live perilously close to Baltimore city (a notorious cesspool for those of you who dont know). My husband used to work swing shift/night work, which is why I choose to arm myself. I also don't have children to worry about finding it. I was relieved to have it during the Freddy Grey riots back in 2015.

I took the NRA safety course at age 19 and went to the range to learn to handle a gun. I had an excellent instructor, who was a safety freak, so I never did anything stupid. I'm all for training and education.

I'm not sure of the answers to some of your questions. I think age 18 is rather young to be owning a gun but it's old enough to join the military so you have that discrepancy. I'm just here to give you all a friendly reminder that not all Republican gun owners are irresponsible, bad people!

I was a first responder for 16 years and saw people killed with bats, knives, cars, you name it. Thankfully, school shootings were not a thing back when I drove the ambulance so I've never dealt with that.

We have lots of gun laws on the books that aren't enforced. Here in Baltimore, criminals are given a slap on the wrist and released. I agree the system needs an overhaul but I've been seeing a lot of inappropriate knee jerk reactions to this tragedy that aren't going to solve anything.

One of the teachers propped open the door to the school, which allowed the shooter to get in. The police stood around outside for a long time without entering. I support our police but what the heck was that all about? There are lots of things that went wrong that day....I'm still getting the facts but it all boils down to an evil person committing a heinous act.

Ida - First, let me thank you for being a first responder. It's a difficult, under-appreciated job and I'm sure you've seen some horrible things. In your situation I might have wanted a gun in the house, too, and I hope I would have trained as well as you did.
Sadly, not everyone does.

IMO the difference between owning a gun at 18 and joining the military, is that in the military you are trained to use weapons properly. You are taught how, when and where to use your weapon. You can't just pick up a gun and start shooting.

As far as other weapons are concerned, you're right. If people want to hurt or kill others they will find a way. We will never be free from violence. BUT, that doesn't mean we can't try to limit it as much as we can. Someone intent on violence can do a lot less damage with a bat or knife than with an assault rifle and would probably be a lot easier to stop.

Our gun laws do need an overhaul. Assault rifles belong in the military, not on our streets or in our homes. The same with body armor. Is someone expecting a civil war? Or planning one? It sure as hell isn't the people who want gun control.

Lastly, please don't demonize the teachers for doing something none of us would think twice about doing. It was hot. Maybe they opened the door to let in some air. There was no way they could have known what was going to happen. And, yes, it looks like the police made mistakes. If they had acted differently the results may have been different - or maybe worse. We don't know.

Yes, this was a heinous act committed by a twisted individual, but all the inappropriate knee-jerk reactions I see are coming from Republican legislators and the NRA. Their "thoughts and prayers" are worthless if they refuse to do anything to solve the problem except dump more guns onto our streets so they can keep getting gun money. (For all their love of guns and "open carry", isn't it interesting that guns are banned at the NRA convention? What are they afraid of?)

I didn't mean to demonize the poor teacher but simply state a safety featire that was ignored that might have lessened or prevented this carnage. People ignore rules all the time because no one thinks it will ever happen to them. I live with a fomer safety officer who is constantly on the look out.

I don't know if you remember the DC sniper attacks that happened in the fall 2002. It was close enough to where I live that I actually remember running ziz zag from the gas pumps to pay inside so I wouldn't be a target. The school that was in walking distance to my last house was on their target list but fortunately they didn't get to it.

So I hear you loud and clear but I do have friends (other first responders) who do have automatic weapons just in case of civil war or a riot. I used to think a civil war would never happen in my lifetime but now I'm not so sure.

Ida - Neither am I, but I think that if people are afraid of getting shot, putting more guns out there just makes it more likely that it will happen. The politicians who refuse to regulate gun ownership know that fear is building. They encourage it. They figure more people will buy guns, the gun industry will profit and the NRA will donate more millions to keep them in office. As long as they're not the ones getting shot they don't care who dies.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution was written when the weapons of choice were muskets!  

   Times, technology  - and marketing! - have moved on and if it wasn't for money and profit  these laws would have been amended years ago. Some senators (i e government representatives of you)  are taking millions in bribes. Is that okay?

   And Ted Cruz telling a journalist he's a propagandist is like calling the white pot black!

   
    It is all unbelievably sad, and all those young people who are now dead have been terribly, terribly let down by society at large.



   Both of these latest young men (and plenty of them before) seemed to have felt that they had   
   very little support at home and felt alone and disenfranchised - the latest one had a lisp, was  
   alone and suffered from bullying at school from his 'friends' from the word go (The other one  seems to have had parents who were more interested       in horses and telling him how to cheat.

   And if they are able to wander into the nearest gunshop with no questions asked at home or anywhere else and buy an Army type gun without any     training support, and who are happy to take his money regardless, why are we surprised!?!

   According to the NYT the company who sold him the gun has aggressive marketing and is called Pushing Boundaries. So at the end of the day they        really don't care but profit is above all else.

Here's an article that says it all
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/28/1101307932/texas-shooting-uvalde-gun-violence-children-teenagers?t=1653759039362

It saddens me to see people who don't take gun ownership seriously. My one friend used to keep a loaded gun under her couch and I thought she was nuts to be so careless with it.

I view gun ownership like I do driving a car. You cant just hop in , you need to be taught learn how to drive and learn the rules of the road. I'm not against mandatory safety classes and lessons.

I feel bad that the kid was bullied but I was bullied growing up, too. I still didn't go shooting up a classroom. There's got to be more to this story, not that it will change anything for the poor families involved.

I appreciate that you guys have been civil about it. Some of my friends (on both sides if the political spectrum) have gotten pretty ugly about it.

Ida - Not being civil only widens the gap between us. If we can discuss things civilly, I think we find we are in agreement on a lot of things. For example, I think we agree that training in firearms use should be required for gun ownership. Would you agree to licensing? Registration? Red-flag laws?

What does make me angry is the "they're coming to take all our guns" mantra. That's nonsense. As much as I would like to see every gun in the world gone tomorrow, nobody's coming for anyone's guns - unless they've been identified as a threat. Beau of the Fifth Column said  recently that if we collected one gun every minute it would take something like 500 years to collect all the guns that are out there now. 500 YEARS! And there are more bought and sold every day. I think it's pretty safe to say guns ownership is here to stay.

Trust me, living so close to Baltimore city (where people are shot daily) has opened my conservative eyes to the horrors of illegal gun ownership. It is legitimately like the wild, wild west there. And criminals are released to do it all over again.

The biggest issue I have with licensing and registration is knowing that the government will have people's names if a civil insurrection should occur. They can conceivably come and confiscate their weapons since they would be registered.

Sorry to be so wishy washy on the topic. I'm the same way about abortion rights. I'm pro choice but some of the abuses I have seen (women using it as a method of birth control and having 9 of them) while working in a hospital make me ill.

I think it's the abuses of our laws and rights that make most of us angry so I try to focus on that common ground. I really don't have the solution, though. If I did, I'd be a politician. Lol.

Ida - I'm not making light of your concerns, but it seems to me that the more unregulated guns there are, the more likely there is to be civil insurrection. I'm not naive. I know that there are already enough guns out there to arm an insurrection. Nobody knows who has those guns or how many they have. These people have little fear of being found out until after they act. If they could be stopped before they acted - if registering or licensing guns could stop them - isn't it worth doing?

I think regulating guns makes civil insurrection less likely. I don't think the government will come for licensed or registered guns, If there is civil unrest I think it's more likely they'll ask registered gun owners for help - like an unofficial militia.

I'm sorry, but I think the fear people have of what might happen is the cause of what is happening. People afraid of guns keep buying guns so more people die from gun violence. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Adrian Fontes is an ex-marine Democrat running for Secretary of State of Arizona. He posted a video to The Meidas Touch YT channel about gun control that I really think everyone in this country should see. He explains, in plain English and with passion - the way the 2nd Amendment is supposed to work, as set forth in the Constitution. - and not just what it says in the first paragraph, which seems to be all that most people read. It's a brilliant explanation. I hope he gets elected and I hope this is only the start of his political career.

https://people.com/pets/california-animal-shelter-introduces-policy-requiring-support-of-gun-control-for-pet-adoption/

[size=48]California Animal Shelter Introduces Policy Requiring Support of Gun Control for Pet Adoption
The owner of The Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, California, announced the new policy in response to the recent mass shootings across the U.S.
By Vanessa EtienneJune 10, 2022 02:19 PM[/size]
FB[url=https://www.twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=California Animal Shelter Introduces Policy Requiring Support of Gun Control]Tweet[/url]
More


CREDIT: GETTY
A California animal shelter is adding a new question to its standard interviews for those interested in pet adoption: Where do you stand on gun control?
The Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, California, released a statement supporting gun control following the Uvalde school shooting and several other mass shootings in the U.S. Additionally, the shelter announced that they would stop adopting out animals to those who oppose certain restrictions on gun ownership.
"We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons," Kim Sill, owner of the shelter, wrote on the organization's website, per The Hill. "If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you."
"If you lie about being a [National Rifle Association] supporter, make no mistake, we will sue you for fraud," Sill added.

RELATED VIDEO: Dog in Shelter Over 200 Days Still Looking for a Home After No One Shows Up to Adoption Party









Uvalde Families Plead for Congress to Strengthen Gun Laws: ‘I Will Never ForgetWhat I Saw That Day’
In addition to supporting gun control, pet adoption candidates must be 25 years old with a driver's license. A home visit is also required before the shelter offers adoption approval.
Sill explained that the shelter put the new policy in place as a response to the many cities that have been "scarred" by mass shootings, sharing condolences to those in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers with an AR-15-style rifle at Robb Elementary School.
"We will continue to support our community, but if you are pro-guns and believe that no background check is necessary, then do not come to us to adopt," she said. "We will grill you before you even get an appointment and visit our rescue. If we ask you, 'Do you care about children being gunned down in our schools?' If you hesitate, because your core belief is that you believe teachers need to carry firearms, then you will not get approved to adopt from us."

"If you foster for us and believe in guns, please bring our dogs and/or cats back, or we will arrange to have them picked up," the statement continued. "Shelter Hope Pet Shop in no way will continue to operate if we are even remotely part of the problem." 
Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.


RELATED: 'Wonderful' Dog in Nebraska Shelter for 'Nearly 5 Years' Adopted: 'Captured All of Our Hearts'
On Thursday, NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter responded to the shelter's decision, calling the policy "asinine."
"Having this asinine political litmus test comes at the expense of needy and homeless dogs and cats," Hunter said, per NBC News.
Sill told the outlet that many donors for The Shelter Hope Pet Shop are Republicans and have threatened to end financial support if the organization's new policy regarding gun control remains.
"I say, fine, keep your money," she said. "If I go out of business, as a result, I go out of business. But I have to do something. And this is the only thing I can do to make the point that mass killings by people armed with guns have to stop."
Want to get the biggest stories from PEOPLE every weekday? Subscribe to our new podcast, PEOPLE Every Day, to get the essential celebrity, entertainment and human interest news stories Monday through Friday. 
Sill added to NBC News that she was also inspired by Academy Award-winning actor Matthew McConaughey's speech calling on Congress to take "reasonable" and "practical" steps toward protecting Americans by introducing gun legislation.
She added that the actor's wife, Camila Alves McConaughey, previously adopted two dogs from her shelter when they lived in Malibu.
"I know he's a gun owner, and when he went before Congress and said we've got to do something about this, well, my heart went out to him," Sill said. "I hope other gun owners do the same. Because this is killing all of us."

California is always coming up with something crazy!

I'm not against background checks but what does your stance on gun control have to do with being a responsible pet owner?

Last time I adopted a cat (over 13 years ago), the background check was so extensive, it was almost like adopting a human child already. Nra members aren't the ones out there doing all the shootings.

Ida - I think she's just trying to make a point in the only way she knows how. It isn't that she's totally anti-gun, but that she believes in responsible gun policies. From what you've said, so do you.

She didn't say they wouldn't adopt out to NRA members, but that if someone lied about it they couldn't adopt from that shelter. Seems to me, if someone lied about that they aren't trustworthy. Why not be honest and explain what you believe? If you are a responsible gun owner you might very likely agree with the Shelter's policy.

It should not even be a question, as it has nothing to do with being a responsible pet owner. How would it sound if the question...do you believe in God was on the form? Or do you support LGBT? It should not be a question for pet ownership.

Ida - I don't think they're the same. It seems this shelter is very concerned with finding responsible owners for their animals. To my mind, people who believe in responsible gun ownership would be responsible pet owners,, as well. People who believe there should be no limits on gun ownership seem, to me, to be lacking in empathy and, honestly, quite selfish and immature. They only think about themselves and everyone else be damned. They're not the kind of people I'd want to give a pet to,

For what it's worth, my immediate thought on this story was positive, because if the owners of the pet rescue want to make that requirement, or preference, for potential owners or adopters, then that is their choice. It's a plus/plus situation and if people would rather go to another pet shelter without any stipulations, they are free to do so.

Speaking purely personally, I would love to go to this shelter, if only for their thoughtfulness on the subject - but that is only because I can't possibly imagine what it must be like to live somewhere where you have to own a gun to feel safe

PAN - I understand why Ida feels as she does about gun ownership, but I don't see how common sense restrictions infringe on anyone's rights and that's what the shelter is supporting. The Constitution and the history of gun legislation in this country surprisingly support regulation of gun ownership. It's only recently that it's gotten so out of control.

I feel safe in my neighborhood even though the city is seeing a rise in gun crimes. I'm not sure how we can solve the problem, but I won't ever vote for anyone who isn't willing to try.

Quite a nice headline here.......

    https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/06/10/congresss-capitol-riot-hearing-confirms-donald-trumps-complicity

We all know he's complicit. We've known it all along. The problem is that half the country doesn't care.

Congress’s Capitol-riot hearing confirms Donald Trump’s complicity

Mr Trump was even more responsible for the insurrection than you might think

[size=16]Jun 10th 2022 | WASHINGTON, DC
[size=16]Share

[size=50]When asked why they are bothering to investigate an event that most Americans have either misinterpreted or moved on from, members of Congress’s January 6th 2021 committee often cite history. “In five or ten years, when kids are in school,” said Adam Kinzinger, one of the two Republican members of the inquiry into the insurrection, “they are going to learn about [our] report, they’re not going to learn about the conspiracies.” A public hearing by the committee on June 9th gave a good indication of the record that the House committee intends, after 11 months of investigation, to lay down.[/size]
Liz Cheney, the committee’s other Republican, summed it up: “President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.” And he and his cronies did so, the committee has concluded, in the clear knowledge that Mr Trump had lost the election he claimed to have won.
[/size][/size]

I live close enough to DC that I could have attended that rally if I had wanted to but I accepted the election results without protest.

I had a friend who went but she protested peacefully and was not stupid enough to go inside the Capitol building.

It's not that I don't care if Trump was complicit. I do. If the allegations are true then they need to prosecute him. However, its hard for me to decipher whats true these days. The media is full of misinformation and Trump a very hated man. There are people out there will say or do almost anything to bring him down a notch regardless if it's true or not. So, just for the record, I do care but I'm just watching it play out.

Ida - I appreciate that the media makes it confusing to sort things out. Can I suggest that you ignore the media and watch the hearings for yourself, if you can, and see what the witnesses have to say. Most of the people testifying were part of the Trump administration - Republicans working to get him re-elected - who know first-hand what was planned and what happened.

If they now sound like they want to "take him down" it's because of what they experienced working for him and how they think another Trump term would affect our democracy.

Trump is not helping himself by 'helping himself' to the funds given by unwitting crowd members at rallies - for months proof has of this has been available and it has been found to end up in his golf clubs and hotels. That is how serious this is

PAN - He's always been a con man and a grifter. I don't think he knows how not to lie and cheat - and that might just be what brings him down. His financial chicanery - from cheating on his taxes, to keeping government property for his personal use when out of office, to fraudulently raising funds from his supporters - are all under scrutiny by various courts.

He's also being investigated for taking classified documents from the White House, his interference in the voting process in Georgia, not to mention the 1/6 Committee's investigation into the insurrection he fomented. The fact that much of the evidence against him is coming from inside his own administration is a little encouraging, but there are too many little Drumpf clones that have crawled out from under their rocks and infiltrated our government at all levels. It will be a long time before this country becomes a decent place to live again.

I'm not going to defend Trump because I don't think he's the most ethical person myself and that was before he was elected. I'm disappointed that he was even a candidate for presidency. That all being said, I think our country has not been a decent place to live (crime wise) long before Trump took office. Baltimore city has been Democrat run for as long as I can remember and it's like the wild, wild west there! Gun violence and violence in general is off the hook there. They have a do nothing prosecuter. So I'm not going to defend Trump because i agree that he is a narcissistic, money grubbing person but I think some of our country's problems were going on long before he took office.

Ida - I totally agree that our problems did not begin with Trump. They began with our country's love of the almighty dollar and our government's twisted priorities. Both parties put as much effort into fundraising as they do into legislating. Our problem with gun violence owes much to members of Congress wanting campaign donations from the gun industry. They'll allocate billions for defense  (weapons) but pinch pennies when it comes to anything that affects the daily life of our citizens. Where's the money for health care, day care, education, housing, infrastructure, job training....I could go on forever.

We need to end Citizens United, which allows corporations to make large donations to politicians, and we need campaign finance regulations that remove politicians' obligation to those corporations. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that anything will be done to take the corruption out of election politics.

Your're right, Lizzy- and you can add to that list all the dark money (one example:  through the Heritage Foundation) 

     Here's Senator Whitehouse helping Coney Barrett to understand because she didn't seem to know what was happening in various courthouses

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipGKZ1yx4vE

     And Ginny Thomas (Clarence's wife) - incredible!

      https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/ginni-thomas-efforts-to-overturn-trump-loss-arizona

PAN - Again the links don't work for me. Frustrating, but I'll go to YT and check it out. The Ginny Thomas thing is doubly troubling:a) because of her interference in the election and b) how her politics influence her husband.

Both issues are unethical, if not illegal. She should probably be in jail, and he should have recused himself from any cases dealing with election fraud and Donald Trump. He didn't. I don't know what, if any, steps can be taken to censure him or remove him from the court. IMO something else that will never happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipGKZ1yx4vE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuvS36vTiVc

[size=52]Ginni Thomas Texts Show Why the Supreme Court Needs a Code of Conduct
[/size]


Supreme Court justices are the only judges in the country without a binding ethics code.



LAST UPDATED: April 13, 2022
PUBLISHED: March 30, 2022






The facts are simple yet jaw-drop­ping: Between the Novem­ber 2020 elec­tion and the Janu­ary 6 insur­rec­tion, Ginni Thomas texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Mead­ows 29 times, urging him to stop “the greatest Heist of our History.” One year later, Justice Clar­ence Thomas, Ginni’s husband, voted to block the release of White House records regard­ing the insur­rec­tion — records that likely include commu­nic­a­tions by his wife.
The imme­di­ate response should be clear: at a minimum, Justice Thomas should publicly explain what he knew about his wife’s commu­nic­a­tions with the White House, when he knew it, and why he parti­cip­ated in cases related to the insur­rec­tion and the results of the 2020 elec­tion. He should also pledge to step aside from any such cases going forward.
But a prom­ise to recuse is not enough. The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of public confid­ence, and the justices have shown again and again that they cannot be trus­ted to police them­selves. It’s long past time for a Supreme Court code of conduct — one that anti­cip­ates the poten­tial for lawless­ness by the justices them­selves.
Indeed, the law already requires recusal in Justice Thomas’s case, stat­ing that justices must step aside from “any proceed­ing in which [their] impar­ti­al­ity might reas­on­ably be ques­tioned.” The stat­ute also requires justices to step aside if they know their spouse or family member has an “interest that could be substan­tially affected by the outcome of the proceed­ing.” Thomas himself clearly knows this law, having recused six times from cases involving Wachovia while his son worked for the bank.
So why didn’t this law prevent Justice Thomas from hear­ing a case that could reveal his wife’s private commu­nic­a­tions with the White House? Partic­u­larly since ethics experts say the law requires Thomas to ask about his wife’s activ­it­ies, not inten­tion­ally avoid know­ledge so he can claim ignor­ance? As Chief Justice John Roberts has explained, the Supreme Court lets justices decide for them­selves whether they are conflic­ted. “I have complete confid­ence in the capab­il­ity of my colleagues to determ­ine when recusal is warran­ted,” said Roberts in his 2011 report on the state of the federal judi­ciary.
It is clear today that the chief justice’s trust is misplaced. First, the law does not ask whether justices consider them­selves conflic­ted, but whether an outsider might reas­on­ably think they are. Would anyone begrudge a member of the public ques­tion­ing Justice Thomas’s alle­gi­ances in this case?
Second, a series of contro­ver­sies beyond this one make clear that there is a long and troub­ling record of justices enga­ging in conduct that has eroded the public’s trust. This includes partisan speeches, lavish gifts, and recusal fail­ures by members of the Supreme Court, includ­ing a recent New York Times story detail­ing Justice Thomas’s parti­cip­a­tion in events hosted by conser­vat­ive activ­ists. As the advocacy group Fix the Court has docu­mented, in recent years every one of the sitting justices has faced scru­tiny for purpor­ted ethical lapses.
A code of conduct isn’t a cure-all, but having one could allow for more detailed guid­ance on when justices’ recusal is required. This could include better defin­ing when a spouse has an “interest” in a case and clari­fy­ing that poten­tial conflicts should be viewed not from the justice’s perspect­ive but from the public’s. A code could also set up other guard­rails to help restore public confid­ence in the Court, includ­ing address­ing when and how justices can parti­cip­ate in events with prom­in­ent politi­cians or other polit­ical figures — a common prac­tice, and one that research suggests the public views as inap­pro­pri­ate. The justices are the only nine judges in the United States who do not currently have to follow an ethics code.
A number of bills, sponsored by both Demo­crats and Repub­lic­ans, have sought to require a code of conduct for the Supreme Court. Crit­ic­ally, however, the Court does­n’t have to wait for Congress to act. The justices can — and should — adopt a code of conduct on their own to provide guid­ance, trans­par­ency, and account­ab­il­ity regard­ing ethical bound­ar­ies.
The Court must also require justices to explain their recusal decisions in writ­ing, allow­ing the public to assess for them­selves a justice’s explan­a­tion of why they are sitting on a case in which they have a seem­ingly obvi­ous conflict of interest.
Public trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. Only 16 percent of adults say that the justices do a good or excel­lent job of keep­ing their own polit­ical views out of their decisions, accord­ing to a Janu­ary survey by the Pew Research Center. Yet this trust — and the public’s expect­a­tion that the Supreme Court’s decisions be followed — are the Court’s primary sources of author­ity.
Justice Thomas’s fail­ure to recuse reflects less a gap in the law than a lack of tools for hold­ing justices to it. A code of conduct and public explan­a­tions won’t solve the Court’s legit­im­acy crisis, but they would set expect­a­tions for the justices’ beha­vior. Clear stand­ards — and the accom­pa­ny­ing added public scru­tiny — would provide an incent­ive for judges to live up to them. It is urgent that either the Court or Congress put those tools in place.
UPDATE 4/13/22: On April 6, Congres­sional Demo­crats intro­duced [url=https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/21CA Bill Text (117th) EMBARGOED to 1130 4-6.pdf]legis­la­tion[/url] in the House and Senate that would impose new ethics and recusal rules on the federal judi­ciary and the Supreme Court. The bill would, among other things, require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct within 180 days of enact­ment or be subject to the exist­ing code that applies to other federal judges. It would also codify new recusal stand­ards and require requests for a justice’s recusal to be reviewed by the full Court, a change from the current prac­tice of justices making indi­vidual decisions on recusal.

RELATED ISSUES:

Annemarie - Thanks for re-posting the links. I had already tracked down the Sheldon Whitehouse clip, but not the Ginny Thomas one. The article on the need for a Supreme Court code of conduct omits one important factor: the need to appoint justices whose character and ethics are above reproach. Considering who's on the Court now, I think we'll see pigs fly before that happens.

Yep, according to John Cornyn, Republic senator from Texas, you should leave family members 'out of this' (when they are definitely 'in this'!?). Hard to take him seriously when he's had $10 million of NRA backing.........

Do you have a system of representativesand senators declaring publicly and legally their private interests before seeking office? I would love to know who owns shares in all the tv stations........

PAN - I can't speak to the laws in the various states and cities, but on the national level we do have disclosure regulations. I was going to post them, but they're too extensive. Here are the sites, if you want to check them out:

https://ethics.house.gov/financial-disclosure/specific-requirements

https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/financial.disclosure

I'm not sure if specific politicians' filings are easily available to the
public.

https://people.com/crime/police-kill-gunman-attacked-texas-sports-complex-250-kids-attending-summer-camp/

[size=48]Police Kill Gunman Who Attacked Texas Sports Complex Where 250 Kids Were Attending Summer Camp
Police say that 42-year-old Brandon Keith Ned opened fire inside the crowded building and was killed by officers who responded to the shooting. No one else was harmed in the incident
By Steve HellingJune 14, 2022 04:04 PM
FB[url=https://www.twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Police Kill Gunman Who Attacked Texas Sports Complex Where 250 Kids Were Attending Summer Camp https://people.com/crime/police-kill-gunman-attacked-texas-sports-complex-250-kids-attending-summer-camp/%3futm_source=twitter.com%26utm_medium=social%26utm_campaign=social-share-article]Tweet[/url]
More


CREDIT: GETTY
A gunman is dead after authorities say he opened fire inside a crowded summer camp facility in Duncanville, Texas.
According to NBC-5, the man, later identified as 42-year-old Brandon Keith Ned, entered the Duncanville Field House on Monday morning around 8:45 a.m. He was carrying a handgun.
Approximately 250 children between the ages of 4 and 14 were attending a summer camp at the sports complex when Ned allegedly fired at least two shots inside the building.
Multiple people called 911, and police say they arrived approximately two minutes later. Several officers immediately entered the field house.
During their search of the building, officers found Ned in the gymnasium and exchanged gunfire. The gunman was wounded and transported to a local hospital, where he later died.

Authorities have not released a motive in the attack, but tell the Ft Worth Star Telegram that the shooting began after the gunman exchanged words with a camp employee.
Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for PEOPLE's free True Crime newsletter for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.
"Due to the ongoing investigation being conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, Duncanville Police Department will not be releasing any additional information about the suspect or the shooting incident at this time," Duncanville Police said in a statement Tuesday afternoon.
Counselors quickly corralled students out of the building or locked them in darkened classrooms.
No one other than the gunman was injured in the attack.
PEOPLE confirms that Ned had a lengthy rap sheet, with previous convictions for drug possession, unlawfully carrying a gun and intoxication manslaughter.
[/size]

Sad. I have to wonder, with his prior record, why was he out of jail. How did he get a gun?

Ida - Are you kidding??? This is America. Nothing here makes sense anymore.