Can the President Act without the Approval of Congress in Syria

Syria, the use of chemical weapons, the civil war, and ongoing crises in the Middle East (where there seems to have always been some form of crisis going on in my lifetime) makes for quite a predicament. I do not envy the foreign policy team, the president, or Congress as they engage and determine what actions to take.

Concerning the announcement to act and go to Congress about Syria, there are two things I took away:

There is no rush to act in Syria.

The administration feels acting in Syria could likely lead to a larger engagement than what will initially be undertaken.

[I am in no rush to see engagement in Syria, and the administration has my support. Consulting congress and seeking authorization is a good thing.]

I found it interesting to hear and read “experts” disagree about whether the president can act without the authority of Congress. The wordplay in the president’s announcement was skillful and political. To find out the answer [which I feel I and we (if you don’t know) all should know definitively, shame on me]—can the president engage the U.S. Armed Forces in war without approval from Congress—I did some research to educate myself.

Based on what I’ve found the answer is yes, in a national emergency and under the war powers resolution, which provides the president 60 days to engage and conclude the engagement or receive authorization from Congress for further action.

In 2007, while a candidate for office, President Obama stated, “History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” It's somewhat clear where President Obama stands and his actions are consistent with the approach to Syria.

When pursuing engagement in Libya the president sent a letter to Congress informing:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

…I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

In short he informed Congress and the method in which he chose was consistent with the War Powers Resolution which provided legal authorization.

Further, he had additional legal precedent under the U.N. Security Council Resolution. The U.N. has not authorized action in Syria.

The Library of Congress informs some U.S. Presidents have taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the presidency. Examples of the Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include:

1975: President Ford submitted a report to Congress as a result of his order to the U.S. armed forces to retake the Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant vessel which had been seized by Cambodia. This report is the only report to have cited Section 4(a)(1) (50 USC Sec. 1543(a)(1)) of the Resolution, triggering the 60-day time limit; however the operation was completed before 60 days had expired.

1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.

1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983 authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.

1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional "support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.

1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.

2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time, "organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than just nations.

2002: Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq (did not declare war), pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, in Public Law 107-243.

I can see why a president would take issue with the War Powers Resolution and aim to strengthen the presidency, there is the possibility that we could cut our nose to spite our face. Regardless, war is no effortless undertaking and should be entered with the full engagement with the “American people’s representatives in Congress.” Because of politics I assess the majority of future presidents will act alone which will be within their legal authority [once started, Congress won’t stop it]; a few will engage Congress, and Congress will likely not declare war ever again.

“Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific Congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective,” President Obama.

-----

Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

·       The Congress shall have Power... To declare War.

-----

War Powers Resolution:

·       Presidential executive power as Commander in Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization [U.N. Resolution], or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

§ 1543. Reporting requirement

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

[t]he President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

-----

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

# # #

-----

President Obama's remarks on possible U.S. military action in Syria, as released by the White House:

Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four Congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific Congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we've heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We've ended one war in Iraq. We're ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we're not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war.

Instead, we'll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren't perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it's about who we are as a country. I believe that the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn't elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people's representatives stand together.

I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

Video Intrigue: Holy Grail

Jay Z used Facebook to premiere the video for “Holy Grail” which I believe is a first for a major artist, wonder what was the aim and was the aim met. If he wasn't a major name it would not have made news...

According to the WSJ, "The video, which can reach more than 40 million Facebook fans...[was] “liked” more than 217,000 in less than 24 hours. 

What are your thoughts on the video?

Video Intrigue: This is 200 Calories

GOOD NEWS: The day Antoinette Tuff lived up to her name: school clerk talked gunman into putting down weapon

...[W]hen a young man with mental health problems entered the Ronald E McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Georgia this week, brandishing an AK-47, the massacre he planned was prevented not by more firearms, but by the calming words of an unarmed school bookkeeper.

Dressed in black and carrying a backpack filled with 500 rounds of ammunition, 20-year-old Michael Hill slipped past the locked doors of the suburban Atlanta school for 3-to-11-year-olds on Tuesday afternoon, probably following behind a parent who had been buzzed in.

Police said Hill, who had a history of mental health issues, had taken the assault rifle “from the house of an acquaintance” and photographed himself wielding it in preparation for the violence he intended.

Antoinette Tuff was not scheduled to work that day, but the school clerk had agreed to change her shift at the last minute. She was manning the school’s front office alone when Hill stormed in. “He had a look on him that he was willing to kill,” Ms Tuff told ABC News. “Matter of fact he said it: he said he didn’t have any reason to live and that he knew he was going to die today.”

An agitated Hill refused to tell Ms Tuff his name, but said he had stopped taking his medication and ought to be in hospital. Shortly after the two began talking, the school’s cafeteria manager, Malcolm Quillen, entered the office. Hill fired a shot into the floor and told Mr Quillen to leave. Yet Ms Tuff kept a cool head and dialled 911. A remarkable 25-minute recording of that call was released on Wednesday, demonstrating just how coolly she defused the situation.

Ms Tuff said later that she had learned from her pastor about how to “anchor” herself in the Lord during difficult times, and that she clung to her faith throughout the ordeal.

She had also been given training by the school in how to deal with dangerous trespassers. As she kept the gunman occupied in the office, she was able to signal to fellow staff to lock the school’s doors and get its 870 children to safety.



The school’s principal, Brian Bolden, said afterwards: “Her name, Antoinette Tuff, says everything about her: tough. She has always been that way, from the first time I met her.”

In fact, the gunman claimed he did not plan to kill any of the children, but instead wanted to die in a shootout with police. As armed police descended on the school, it appeared that Hill might get his wish: he fired several shots towards them from the office, but no one was hit. An officer fired one shot back, which simply made Hill determined to go out and begin firing again. He ordered Ms Tuff to call a local news station so that a camera crew could be sent out to capture the shootout.

Ms Tuff did as she was told, keeping her composure as she maintained multiple conversations: with Hill, with the local ABC News affiliate WSB-TV, and with the 911 operator. But at the same time she was determined not to let the gunman leave the room.

She said: “I knew that if he got outside, he was unstable enough to start shooting at everybody.” As they spoke, he began filling magazines with ammunition from his bag. “He sat there right in front of me in the office and began to load them with bullets,” she said.

Meanwhile, fearing that Hill might have planted explosives, the police carried out a controlled explosion in Hill’s car, which was parked outside. The school’s pupils were being evacuated from a back door, and fire-fighters cut a hole in a fence at the rear of the property to allow them to escape.

The live news footage was chillingly reminiscent of events in Newtown, Connecticut last December, when a gunman with an assault rifle killed 20 children, six teachers and himself.

Thanks to Ms Tuff, however, Tuesday’s incident did not end in tragedy. During her conversation with the suicidal Hill, she opened up to him about the problems she had faced in her own life, explaining that she had a severely disabled son, and had recently separated from her husband of 33 years – but that she had picked herself up and started her own business. “I told him, we all have situations in our lives, [but] it was going to be okay. If I could recover, he could, too.”

After about an hour, Hill had calmed down sufficiently that Ms Tuff began trying to persuade him to surrender, even suggesting that she walk outside with him to prevent his being shot by police. “[I] let him know that he could just give himself up,” she told WSB-TV. “I told him to put [the guns] on the table, empty his pockets. He had me actually get on the intercom and tell everybody he was sorry...

“I give it all to God. I’m not the hero. I was terrified.”

Hill eventually gave himself up, and was arrested without injury to himself or anyone else. He was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, terrorist threats and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Speaking to ABC, Hill’s older brother Timothy revealed that he suffered from serious mental health problems. “I had a feeling he was going to eventually, one day, do something stupid, but not of this magnitude,” said Timothy Hill, 22. Police also revealed that Michael Hill had sent his brother a Facebook message last year, saying, “he would shoot him in the head and not think twice about it”. The siblings had not seen each other since early 2011.

Ms Tuff said Hill told her he had no reason to live, because nobody loved him. “It was scary because I knew at that moment he was ready to take my life along with his, and if I didn’t say the right thing, then we all would be dead.” As Hill lay on the floor of the office and prepared to surrender, Ms Tuff can be heard on the 911 recording, telling him: “I just want you to know that I love you and I’m proud of you.” It was then that he finally told her his name.

Shortly afterwards, the police can be heard entering the office and arresting the gunman.

As she broke down in sobs, Ms Tuff told the 911 operator, “I’m going to tell you something, baby. I’ve never been so scared in all the days in my life.” “You did great,” the operator replied.

Author: Tim Walker
Thursday, 22 August 2013

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-day-antoinette-tuff-lived-up-to-her-name-school-clerk-talked-gunman-into-putting-down-weapon-8781006.html#

For Colored Boys --- a dramatic web series. Must see???

For Colored Boys is a dramatic web series written and directed by Stacey Muhammad of Wildseed Films.  

Take a look at the trailer...

Inspired by the highly acclaimed 1975 choreopoem "For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf" by Ntozake Shange, For Colored Boys is a series of short stories that follow the lives of African American men from various walks of life as they navigate and overcome challenges, face their fears, find their truth, mend broken relationships, find love, build families and inspire the lives of many.

Take a look at the pilot...

Must see?

I'm giving it a chance...

If you like it; support it by watching and donating to production....

Webpage: http://www.forcoloredboysseries.com

GOOD NEWS: Nas helps raise $32,000 for single father of 8 kids who were displaced by a fire

Nas used his celebrity influence to help a single father and his eight children who have been misplaced by a fire. The rapper discovered Stanley Young’s story while reading an article online.

In July, Young’s family home was destroyed by a fire and was forced to move his eight children in a hotel. However, Young, who is a former construction worker and unemployed will have to leave the hotel by Aug. 13. Young’s wife and the mother of his children died last year.

To help with the situation, Nas created a fund raising campaign on CrowdTilt.com. Nas started the campaign with $5,000 of his own money and later added $5,000 more. The target amount is $50,000. At press time, $32,305 had been raised.

Nas provided insight on why he decided to start the campaign: “I am also a single father, and we don’t get enough credit in this country. I’m committed to helping Stanley and his eight kids. Moreover, I believe and hope that we should all, as a community, come together to help our fellow American men and women when they need us in desperate situations like this.”

Why not give?

Not because it's the holidays or because you get a tax deduction.

Not because someone is going to match your funds or because your neighbor won't be able to enter a marathon if you don't.

Not because the kid is at the doorbell with those cookies or because it's pledge week.

And not because you read something that pulled your heartstrings.

Right now, for no good reason (and for every good reason), even if it's only $5. Pick whatever cause you care about. 

And tell a friend.

What if everyone did that, right now?

Generosity is its own reward. Go for it.

------------------
Nas Helps raise $32,000
Source: http://rollingout.com/culture/nas-helps-raise-32000-for-single-father-and-his-eight-kids-who-were-displaced-by-fire/
Author: Amir Shaw

Why not give?
Source: http://sethgodin.typepad.com
Author: Seth Godine

Video Intrigue:: Frank Ocean "Pyramids"

Wealth --- What Does It Mean?

I use to believe wealth meant having resources to purchase what I wanted. In short, I fully bought into the consumer culture. The result, I was broke, I lived paycheck to paycheck, and I had nice worthless things. That is no way to live, and definitely not a way to build wealth. The crazy thing is --- I felt wealthy.

At various points from 1999-2009 I owned (paid off) a “96” Dodge Stratus, “99” Cadillac Seville STS, “02” Cadillac Deville DHS, “04” Volkswagon New Beetle, and “04” Mercedes-Benz C230 sport Kompressor. The cars are just half of the story; I financed a lifestyle that made me feel good and entertained, but kept me from truly building wealth financially. In 2005, I began to save money, and manage my finances.  

It took me five years, 2005 to 2010, to become solvent and establish a stable path to financial freedom. In essence, I had a personal lost decade.

From Wikipedia:

Wealth: the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions.

                 

Sociological treatments with regard to wealth:

Social class is not identical to wealth, but the two concepts are related, leading to the combined concept of Socioeconomic status.

Partly as a result of different economic conditions of life, members of different social classes often have different value systems and view the world in different ways. As such, there are different conceptions of social reality, and different aspirations and hopes and fears. The way the various social classes in society view wealth vary and these diverse characteristics are a fundamental dividing line among the classes.

U.S. Classes:

The Upper Class. Upper class values include higher education, generational transfer of wealth, other the wealthiest people, the maintenance of wealth, social networks, and the power that accompanies such networks. Children of the upper class are typically schooled on how to manage this power and channel this privilege in different forms.

The Middle Class. The middle class places a greater emphasis on income. The middle class views wealth as something for emergencies and it is seen as more of a cushion. This class comprises people that were raised with families that typically owned their own home, planned ahead and stressed the importance of education and achievement. They earn a significant amount of income and also have significant amounts of consumption. There is very limited savings and investments beyond retirement pensions and homeownership. They (the middle class) have been socialized to accumulate wealth through structured, institutionalized arrangements. Without this set structure, asset accumulation would likely not occur.

The Lower Class. Those with the least amount of wealth are the poor. Wealth accumulation for this class is to some extent prohibited. Most of the institutions that the poor encounter discourage any accumulation of assets.

Dictionary.com:

wealth

noun

1. a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city. 

2. an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery. 

3. Economics .

a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.

b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.

4. rich or valuable contents or produce: the wealth of the soil. 

5. the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence.

In answering the question today, I affirm wealth means having health --- physical and mental, family, friends, and enough resources.

Health. I aim to live a healthy lifestyle (overweight who cares).

Family and friends. I don’t take my family and friends for granted and enjoy the moments we have together.

Resources. I enjoy the fruits of my labor but within my means based on my reality, not that of expectations set by others.

I was born into the “lower class” where the consumer culture discourages the accumulation of wealth and strongly encourages us who can least afford it to keep up with the Combs’. I earned my way into the “middle class” and increased my consumption accordingly, bought a house, and significantly increased my contributions to my retirement plan. In short, I had bought into the institutional arrangements established for the middle class.

Don’t be defined by class.

I consider myself wealthy, but I am not under any illusions about my net worth. I am not Oprah wealthy, and that isn’t my goal, if I somehow became so, great, but it’s not a level of financial wealth I am aiming for. I am wealthy because I do have my health --- physical and mental --- and I have an opportunity to maintain it. I am wealthy because I have a great family and great friends. I have resources to live a modest life compared to that of Oprah, and an extravagant life compared to that of the homeless, but I am wealthy because I have the resources to live a respectable life based on my value system.

The definition of wealth is open to interpretation; a monetary value is not used to define wealth. There is someone in the U.S. that makes $1 million and spends $1 million, basically they are paycheck to paycheck and one paycheck away from being broke. Athletes are not the only individuals that earn significant sums of money then end up broke when their career is over.

Are you wealthy?

What does wealth mean to you?

The Curious Case of the Colts

The Indianapolis Colts were one of 2012's most fascinating teams. Their rebuild from the bottom of the NFL came in way ahead of schedule, as the 2-14 Colts from 2011 improved all the way to 11-5 in 2012, earning an unlikely playoff berth in the process. Andrew Luck. Reggie Wayne. #Chuckstrong. You remember. The Colts were a fun team to watch and an easy team to root for. In terms of their expectations heading into the season, 2012 was a massive, massive success for the guys in Indy.


As far as 2013 goes? We'll see. Obviously, if you've read some of Grantland's offseason NFL content from the past few months, I've pointed out that there are reasons to think that this year's Colts will decline, most of which involve metrics suggesting that Indianapolis was pretty lucky to go 11-5 last year. Each team that fits into the sort of statistically lucky categories last year's Colts team squeezed into will have anecdotal arguments suggesting that it'll be the team to avoid the decline, but Indy's case might be stronger than most. In the end, hopefully we can get a clear picture of whether the 2013 Colts will likely be able to repeat — or even possibly improve upon — the success they enjoyed a year ago.

The Case Against the Colts

Their point differential didn't match their win-loss record: The 11-5 Colts were outscored by 30 points, becoming the first 11-5 team in league history to fail to post a positive point differential. Using the Pythagorean expectation, the Colts had a point differential more commonly associated with that of a 7.2-win team.
That gap between their actual win total and the win total we would expect from their Pythagorean expectation — 3.8 wins — is enormous. It's the second-largest difference since 1989, with the largest difference coming from another version of this team. The 1992 Colts went 9-7 while being outscored by 86 points, producing a Pythagorean expectation of 5.0 wins and a difference of four full wins. The next year, they went 4-12. The 2013 Colts won't be that bad.

It's true that teams who greatly outstrip their Pythagorean expectation often decline the following season. There are only six other teams since 1989 that were more than three wins better than their Pythagorean expectation, and they declined by a combined 22 wins the following season, nearly four per team. If we expand the sample out to teams that were two wins better than their Pythagorean expectation, we get 33 teams, of which 21 declined and seven stagnated. In all, those 33 teams declined by an average of 2.4 wins the following year.

They were remarkably good in close games: Closely correlated to that figure is Indy's impressive run in tight contests. The Colts were a remarkable 9-1 in games decided by one touchdown (seven points) or less, a category in which the vast majority of teams will win about 50 percent of contests over any length of time. Only two teams since 1989 had won nine one-touchdown games in a single season; they each went 9-3 during their big season, and the following year they were a combined 7-7. But that's just two teams.

It's hard to classify teams into a group when it comes to measuring close-game performance, but let's work with those teams since 1989 that played at least seven close games and won at least 70 percent of those games. There are 84 instances of that happening. The following year, those 84 teams went a combined 308-292-2 in one-touchdown games, winning 51.1 percent of the contests. That's textbook regression to the mean. Indy won't be as good in close games again in 2013.

The Plexiglass Principle: Teams that suffer enormous declines tend to improve the following season. That's a fact that stood in the Colts' corner heading into last season, when they were a team that had fallen from 10-6 in 2010 to 2-14 in 2011. That eight-win drop made them a likely candidate to improve by a few wins in 2012, although no model would have suggested that they would go from 2-14 to 11-5.

And now, that nine-win improvement stands as an argument on the other side of Bill James's Plexiglass Principle: Teams that improve by a significant margin in one season tend to give up some of those gains the following year. Just four other teams since 1989 have improved by nine wins or more, but the point still holds if I expand the sample set out to the 34 teams over that time frame that improved by six wins or more in a given season. During the following season, just five of those 34 teams improved, and most declined noticeably. The average team in that group won three fewer games than it had the previous year.

They played a paper-soft schedule: Both Football Outsiders and Pro-Football-Reference.com measure strength of schedule using their respective advanced metrics. They agree on one thing with the Colts: They played the league's easiest schedule last year. Nine of Indy's 16 games came against teams that earned top-10 picks in the 2013 draft. They actually lost the first two of those nine contests before winning the final seven. They were 4-3 in the other seven games, but they were outscored by 46 points in the seven tilts, including a 35-point shellacking by the Patriots in New England.

While strength of schedule can be extremely tricky to predict, what has been clear is just how inconsistent it is. The correlation coefficient between a team's strength of schedule from year to year, using the Pro-Football-Reference.com measure of schedule strength, is just 0.14. If you're forgetting some junior high math, that means there's virtually no relationship between the two groups, and that tells us that the Colts' easy schedule from 2012 has no predicative value for how easy their schedule will be in 2013.

That doesn't mean that Indianapolis's schedule will necessarily be tough. The AFC South is a relatively friendly division. They replace last year's out of division opponents, the AFC East and the NFC North, with the AFC West and the NFC West, the latter of which seems to get weaker with every injury report. As a second-place team, they also end up with matchups against the Bengals and Dolphins, which isn't too painful of a combination. I don't think Indianapolis will play the easiest schedule in football again, but it's still likely to be a below-average slate, finishing somewhere in the mid-twenties out of 32.

Put that all together and … : OK. I tried to whittle down the Colts using these factors and come up with a quick concept that compared them to similar teams. In this case, there seemed to be a simple one: Wins by one touchdown or less over sub-.500 teams. The Colts had seven such wins last season, which was tied for the second-highest total since the merger. There was one team with eight such wins (the 2003 Panthers), seven joining the Colts with seven wins, and 17 more with six wins in those situations, for a total of 25 teams with six or more close wins against below-average teams.

Those teams did not fare well the following season. Only four of the 25 maintained their previous record or improved upon it, and one of those teams was the 2012 Broncos, which replaced Tim Tebow with Peyton Manning. In all, the average team in that group declined by 3.2 wins from its previous total. Many of those teams put up gaudy records by narrowly beating weak competition, and then they weren't able to repeat the feat the following year. That's what the Colts are up against.

The Case Against the Case Against the Colts

No two teams are exactly the same, of course, and there are a few factors surrounding the team that might make it one of those special cases that resist regression to the mean. (Do I mean like the 49ers? For a variety of reasons, no.) Indianapolis is a team with some extreme situations worth mentioning, and that starts with the guy under center.
Andrew Luck will be better: I think just about everybody in football believes Andrew Luck is going to be a significantly better quarterback this season, and he obviously wasn't all that bad last year. His numbers did pale in comparison to his Gang of Four compatriots last year, but he had a few excuses to work with, too. Want one? Football Outsiders charters found that Luck had been knocked down 122 times last season, either on a sack or on a hit after he released a pass. In second place was Aaron Rodgers, who was knocked down just 93 times; Rodgers was closer to 21st place than he was to Luck in first. It's pretty incredible that a guy taking that sort of beating could do what Luck did, and as I'll get to in a minute, his protection should be much better this season.

Plenty of quarterbacks have taken second-year statistical leaps, with Peyton Manning standing out as an obvious example. His jump took the Colts from 3-13 to 13-3, so if Luck can repeat Manning's example, the Colts might actually go from 11-5 to 21-(negative 5). On the other hand, Luck could improve statistically and still be on a disappointing team; he could put up plenty of numbers in garbage time if the Colts are losing in the fourth quarter. Definitely, though, the best defense against regression is a truly great quarterback, and Luck could be that great as early as this season.

More upgrades on the roster than the average team: I wasn't a big fan of Indianapolis's spending spree this offseason, but that was more about how much the Colts spent than the quality of the players they acquired. That offensive line should be better with Donald Thomas and Gosder Cherilus involved, with the latter standing out as the most important addition the team made this offseason. Ahmad Bradshaw, the best deal GM Ryan Grigson made over the break, will be an upgrade on Vick Ballard and Donald Brown at running back. The likes of LaRon Landry, Greg Toler, Erik Walden, and Ricky Jean-Francois can be useful assets if employed judiciously and if they are able to stay healthy.

It's also true that many teams similar to the Colts — teams that were young and made a sudden move into the playoffs — would have spent a lot of money in the offseason. Competitive teams with loads of cap space almost always do, with the current Seahawks standing out as another example of such a team. That said, there's no guarantee that these guys, moving in most cases into a new system, will necessarily succeed with Indianapolis. When you sign guys in the middle of the market, as the Colts did, there's a smaller margin for error in terms of their adaptability. And in some cases, the guys they had might have been better than these new talents, and the Colts could have misread the upgrade opportunity. In general, the pure talent level on the Indy roster is higher than it was a year ago. They'll also benefit from …

Being a very young team: This one is true, but maybe not as true as it might seem on the surface. In terms of snap-weighted age, Indianapolis had the league's fifth-youngest offense and 13th-youngest defense a year ago. Many of those players will be a year older now, obviously, but Indianapolis should still be on the youthful side of the aging curve and should expect many of their young talents to play better in 2014.

In the case of players like Luck, T.Y. Hilton, and Anthony Castonzo, that's absolutely true. There are other places on the roster where Indy might be dependent upon older talent. Consider that they're still heavily reliant on Reggie Wayne (now 34 years old) and Robert Mathis (32) on their respective sides of the ball. They've also just gone out and signed a bunch of veterans in free agency, and in only one case (Walden replacing Dwight Freeney) did they get younger in the process. Some of the deals are relative washes in terms of age, but Indy likely took starter-level snaps away from Ballard when they signed the much older Bradshaw to a one-year deal. The Colts are certainly not going to be an old team, but they will have older players in more meaningful spots than people realize.

Their turnover differential should improve: Stats respect stats! The Colts had a turnover differential of minus-12 last year, which was the seventh-worst figure in football. That mostly belongs to a defense that failed to create many turnovers. The Indianapolis defense produced takeaways on just 8.7 percent of drives last season, and only five teams were worse. I'm very confident they'll force more takeaways this year.

It would seem safe to assume that Luck will throw fewer than his 18 interceptions from a year ago, but there's a sign that Luck might actually have been … lucky a year ago. (I'm the first person to run into that pun, right? Good.) Football Outsiders charters also credited Luck with more dropped interceptions than anybody else in football last season, and the only regular starter who threw interceptable passes on a more frequent basis was Brandon Weeden. So while I would normally point to the second-year interception-rate turnarounds of players like Peyton Manning and Josh Freeman, Luck's interception rate might remain in the high teens again this year.

A full year with Chuck Pagano: Finally, the Colts will also get a full season with their head coach in 2013, with leukemia having kept Pagano away from the organization for most of his debut season as coach. I don't need to address the obvious emotional benefits of having your head coach healthy and happy, but Pagano's presence should really help on the defensive side, where he spent his entire career as a coach and coordinator. With so many new players fixing to suit up on that side of the ball, Pagano's ability to fit talent into an unfamiliar scheme will be essential to Indy's success this season.

On the other hand, the Colts also lost Pagano's replacement, Bruce Arians, this offseason. Arians took over under obviously stressful circumstances and went 9-3 before turning the team back to a returning Pagano, a performance that earned him the head coach's job in Arizona. Arians did an excellent job with Luck and a very limited group of receivers last season, and his absence will be a blow.
His replacement is former Stanford offensive coordinator Pep Hamilton, who has already started posturing that the Colts need to get back to basics and run a balanced offense with a power rushing attack, which seems odd to quote as an essential part of winning football for a city that just watched Peyton Manning for more than a decade. Coaches are more concerned with "balance" than they should be, because it can often be an offensive trait that's defined by game situation rather than a team's actual play calling. Teams don't run to win; they get a big lead and then run to kill clock. If the Colts can run the ball well and create play-action opportunities for Luck, there's nothing wrong with a balanced offense. If balancing the offense means "establishing the run" by plowing Bradshaw and Ballard into the line for two yards on first down every drive, that's setting the offense back.

And the Verdict Is …

If this were a team without any hope of a significant improvement at quarterback, it would be a cinch that the Colts would decline, and likely by about five games. Luck, though, is so gifted that it's not impossible to imagine him putting the team on his back and taking over games at key moments. The guy had seven game-winning drives in the fourth quarter last year, and only two quarterbacks since 1960 have produced more in a single campaign. And that was Andrew Luck as a rookie!

With that said, there's a dramatic disconnect between the record of last year's team and just about every other measure or indicator of its level of play. Football Outsiders had the Colts at 25th in DVOA, meaning they played about as well on a per-snap basis as the Browns (24th) or Cardinals (26th). Even if Luck improves dramatically, the lack of star talent around the roster (especially star talent that isn't past its prime) and the dramatic amount of change still occurring with the roster suggests that this will be a consolidation season. The Colts aren't likely to be terrible with Luck around, but 8-8 seems like the most plausible record for Indy this year. The Colts are still poised for future success, just not in 2013.

Author: Bill Barnwell

Source: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9543714/bill-barnwell-breaks-colts-chances-repeating-their-playoff-worthy-record

Video Intrigue: NAS "One Mic" a Classic

A classic.