Friday, August 31, 2012

Special Alert: Open Season on Wyoming's Wolves


Howdy You All, 

We are deeply disturbed and disappointed by today's announcement from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service about Wyoming's wolves. Please read the details and stay tuned for further updates.
National Wolfwatcher Coalition
In This Issue
Wyoming Wolf Plan Approved
Special News Bulletin

It's Open Season on Wyoming's Wolves...



Today, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the Wyoming population of gray wolves is recovered and no longer warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Beginning September 30th, wolves in Wyoming will be managed by the state under the approved management plan, as they are in the states of Idaho and Montana. The approved plan is virtually the same exact plan that was previously rejected by USFWS in past.


USFWS has stated on more than one occasion that a cut in federal wolf management funding comes along with taking wolves off the Endangered Species List. We agree, it is lack of funding and special interest pressure that pushed USFWS to approve the Wyoming wolf plan - certainly not science.  


More than 60 percent of Wyoming's wolves outside of Yellowstone National Park -- including pups -- could be wiped out within a year. Wolves that wander beyond the invisible border of Yellowstone National Park could be shot dead.


Photo courtesy of Wolfwatcher's
Yellowstone Adviser Brandi Nichols

Overall, we assert that the plan recklessly removes protections for gray wolves in a manner that can potentially unravel the scientific recovery of wolves across the entire region; it allows wolf hunting in important wildlife corridors which endangers wolves' connectivity with neighboring wolves in Idaho, and thus, will negatively impact their biological diversity. The plan affords no protection to wolves in almost 90% of the state; it allows two-thirds of Wyoming's wolves to be shot on sight, trapped, aerial gunned, gassed, or even chased to exhaustion and exterminated by anyone, at any time, for any reason without a hunting license. Independent scientists say that 2,000 to 3,000 wolves are needed for a sustainable, fully recovered population. We believe that with USFWS approval today comes certain devastation to wild wolves in the entire region.


Once described by the American Society of Mammalogists as "the most destructive organized agency that has ever menaced so many species of our native fauna,"   let's not forget that USFWS was formerly the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey which played a large role in the extirpation of wolves from the lower 48 states. While they may not be directly involved with killing wolves today, it seems the agency seeks to pass this legacy on to the state agencies that will. USFWS's Mission Statement states, "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's mission is working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people."   How does this apply to the bloodbath that will certainly take place in Wyoming in coming months?   Those of us who want to see true recovery are the majority, so who are these American people they are talking about?


Wolfwatcher wholeheartedly endorses and supports the swift and powerful actions of fellow conservation organizations that have announced plans to legally challenge this decision in court.   We will be providing you with information about these efforts, and we strongly encourage you to support them, as well. We will also continue to monitor these and other developments to keep you better informed.


Thank you. 



Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Earth Picture

The Earth and Hurricane Isaac on the evening of 8-28-2012:

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Arijit Vs. Delta- On August 18, after I cleared multiple TSA security checks, a Delta pilot denied my right to board a flight.

On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Delta Airlines gave in to the fears of bigots and refused to let me board a flight out of Buffalo-Niagara Airport.

What follows is my 3,000-ish word reflection on what happened. A shorter version, with tweets, can be seen via Storify here.


My wife and I had arrived at the airport to fly home to Phoenix after attending my wife’s grandfather’s funeral, via a layover in Atlanta on Delta #1176. We had cleared the security checkpoint without incident, but while waiting at the gate, a Delta supervisor informed me my shirt (this one here, designed by Cory Doctorow) had made numerous passengers and employees “very uncomfortable.”

I was then questioned by TSA about the significance and meaning of the shirt. I politely explained that it was “mocking the security theater charade and over-reactions to terrorism by the general public — both of which we're seeing right now, ironically.” The agents inquired as to the meaning of the term “ZOMG” and who it was that I thought was “gonna kill us all.” As best I could tell, they seemed to find my explanation that I didn’t think anyone would be killing us all and that I was poking fun at overwrought, irrational fears exhibited by certain members of the flying public to be satisfactory.  And moreover, they clearly deemed my shirt to be no legitimate threat.

The Delta supervisor then told me I would be able to board the plane, but only after acquiescing to an additional security check of my and my wife's belongings and changing my shirt. He went to lengths to explain that my choice of attire was inappropriate and had caused serious consternation amongst multiple individuals, and that ultimately “It's not you, it's the shirt.” We would then be the very last two people to board the plane, no doubt drawing additional ire of my fellow passengers. Despite what I saw as my right to wear a shirt that expresses my feelings about our Kabuki Security Theater, and a fairly ridiculous over-response to the matter (I had, after all, worn the same shirt at least the last five times I’d flown without any incident whatsoever), I agreed to the stipulations set forth by the Delta supervisor.

Soon afterwards, once the boarding process had commenced, the Delta supervisor pulled me aside again — this time accompanied by not only three TSA agents, but also multiple Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority transit police. I was questioned some more and my wife was also pulled out of line for additional questioning and screening. Our bags were searched, my shirt was photographed, we were asked multiple questions about the cause of our visit, how often we make it to western NY, and our drivers’ license numbers were taken and radioed in for what seemed to be a quick background check.

At this point, the TSA agents appeared satisfied we had nothing suspicious in our luggage and that we posed no threat. However, the Delta supervisor informed us the pilot had decided, regardless of the outcome of the multiple TSA screenings and my willingness to change shirts, that due to the discomfort my shirt has caused, my wife and I would not be allowed to board the aircraft. Passengers on the plane supposedly felt uncomfortable with my very presence on the flight. And the Delta manager went out of his way to point out that he wholeheartedly agreed with the pilot’s decision.

I was stunned. “You’re f------ kidding me,” I said in response. I pushed for an explanation of why the pilot was willing to overrule/ignore the judgment of the trained security officers. “Why can’t I board? What’s the concern?,” I asked.  

His response left me even more stunned: “Just use your imagination.” 

Wow. Let’s just consider that for a moment. 

In short, security screenings and any other evidence-based assessment method have been deemed irrelevant. Whatever I do, I am suspicious. Why? Not because the shirt I’m wearing presents some sort of legitimate threat. Not because I have weapons or potential bomb-making tools in my luggage. And not because I’ve shown any other indication of any sort that I’m a potential terrorist.  Rather, the pilot and some Delta rep can project upon me their worst fears of what I am possibly capable of.  If that’s the case, why even bother with the bloated security apparatus — since Delta pilots have discretion to kick off passengers who've passed multiple checks, after all?

Though I suppose I see where they’re coming from: my 120 pound frame on my 6’2” body is very, very intimidating. Given the fact that I’d already exhibited a sense of sarcasm and willingness to question authority, it’s certainly no leap in logic to expect I’d combine that unacceptable uppityness of mine with my brute strength to single-handedly takeover the plane mid-flight. You know, with mind bullets. Oh yeah, seems completely reasonable to me.

And so long as we’re just coming up with completely unjustified imaginary scenarios about what other passengers might do, let me give that a hand, too. As I posted to Twitter: “Using my imagination, I'm afraid the racist dingdongs flying @Delta will attack me mid-flight. Will @Delta pilot refuse to let them fly?” Of course, using my imagination about the threat posed by white passengers just doesn't carry the same weight with Delta as irrational fear-mongering of white bigots — Delta apparently takes pride in catering to their irrationality. But why? 

If racist dingdongs are made uncomfortable by my presence on flight, shouldn't Delta ask them to change flights rather than kick me off? If any passengers were still afraid of me sans my “upsetting t-shirt,” Delta should see no reason to accommodate them. These are not voices that warrant being appeased. If my presence makes them uncomfortable, they can choose to be on a different flight. But instead Delta explicitly accepted the argument based in pure irrationality, and then went one step further by justifying their own actions by appealing to the powers of the imagination. Absolutely disgusting, appalling behavior. 

As I pointed out on Facebook and Twitter, this incident isn't the first time a Delta pilot has booted a passenger off of a flight because other passengers were upset. Last year, two imams in Memphis were repeatedly cleared by TSA, but denied boarding by a pilot because other passengers were made uncomfortable by their presence. (Ironically, they were traveling to a “conference on American fears of Islam.”)

Not offending the sensibilities of racist passengers who get offended by being forced to travel alongside people of color shouldn't be Delta's goal. No one wins when we tolerate and accommodate such odious behavior. Delta should be willing to recognize the civil rights of all their paying passengers over certain passengers’ “right” to be fearful of Scary Brown Men. Or rather, those who want to be afraid of me and what they fear I may do can go ahead and live and fly in fear, but the last thing Delta or any other airline should do is validate these noxious beliefs.


Now, our hellish travel experience wasn’t quite over just yet.

Having been booted from our flight, the transit police now began to aggressively question us. At one point, I was asked where my brother lives (he was the one who gifted me the shirt). A bit surprised by the irrelevant question, I paused for a moment before answering. 

“You had to think about that one. How come?,” she asked. I explained he recently moved. “Where'd he move from?” “Michigan,” I respond. “Michigan, what's that?,” she says. At this point, the main TSA agent who'd questioned me earlier interjected: “He said ‘Michigan’.” Unable to withhold my snark, I responded with an eye-rolling sneer: “You've never heard of Michigan?”

This response did not please her partner, a transit cop named Mark. Mark grabbed his walkie-talkie and alerted his supervisor and proceeded to request that he be granted permission to question me further in a private room. His justification?: “First he hesitated, then he gave a stupid answer.” Michigan, my friends, is a stupid answer.

And then, he decided to drop any fa├žade of fair treatment: the veil was lifted, this was about who I was and how I looked: “And he looks foreign.” 

Well, Buffalo is pretty close to Canada, so maybe he thought I looked Canadian. What does a Canadian look like anyway? Whatever it is, I’m sure that’s precisely what he was thinking. Certainly he wasn’t implying that dark-skinned people are not real Americans and that white people are the only true Americans. (I wonder what those who settled this land well before the arrival of Europeans would have to say about that.)

Fortunately, Mark’s request was denied. Apparently, someone at NFTA recognized this bigoted meathead for the bigoted meathead he was and that nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone. But Mark wasn’t quite done harassing us. He didn’t get his way with me in a private screening room, but he had some other tricks up his sleeve. He left in a huff, declaring he be back with the dogs. 

Meanwhile, the questioning from the other transit cops continued. As did the questioning on completely irrelevant topics, too. 

The female transit cop found it more than a little bit suspicious that this woman claiming to be my wife didn’t share my last name. She proceeded to question me about it further. “And she’s your wife? How long have you been married? And she refused to take your name? "WHY wouldn't she?” 

In the world of NFTA transit police, women are the chattel of their husbands. And to indicate such, they must take their husbands' names! My wife's unwillingness to give in to this convention is clearly a sign of my swarthy suspicious character. How dare I marry a feminist! The fact that she refuses to define herself by her relation to me is un-American!

Soon, Mark returned. And he had the dog he promised he’d be bringing. Was there any reason to suspect we were carrying drugs? Of course not. Was this anything more than some lunk who was pissed off to see his authority questioned and who chose to respond by trying to intimidate us? Of course not.

The dog turned up nothing and our good friend Mark left again. Shortly thereafter, the latest round of questioning was now complete. 

When Mark returned, he conferred with his fellow transit cops. They found out that I had opted out of the body scanner at the TSA security checkpoint. Mark cited this piece of information to his fellow cops as further evidence of my suspicious nature. Now if Mark had even the slightest clue how to do his job, he could have asked me directly about why I opted out. But that would’ve been too much work. It’s a whole lot easier to make baseless accusations.

Had he asked me, this is what he would’ve learned: I’ve been undergoing treatment for stage IV colon cancer since February 2011. In addition to having little tolerance for unnecessary and ineffective security procedures like the body scanner, I’m also not particularly fond of exposing my body to additional avoidable sources or radiation and, more importantly, any scan would guarantee that I receive a follow-up full-body pat-down. Why? Because I have both an implanted port through which I receive my chemotherapy infusion and, having lost nearly a foot of my sigmoid colon, I have a colostomy.  A bag that full of some sort of foreign matter strapped to the abdomen of a passenger would raise eyebrows among those analyzing the image of me walking through a scanner. Since I’d be selected for additional screening anyway, why go through the scanner when I can just avoid that altogether and go straight to the secondary screening?

But it really shouldn’t matter what my reason for opting out. The key is in that word “opt.” It means I, like any other flyer, have an option. I can choose to avoid the scanner. And in doing so, I shouldn’t be seen as admitting any sort of guilt.


Eventually, the Delta manager returned to inform us we had been rebooked on a flight the following morning at 7 am. But Delta didn't find it necessary to give us a place to stay for the night. Instead, we had to rent a car and drive to my in-laws’ place, some one-and-a-half hours away. We arrived some time around 10 pm and we were off again by 3:45 am to ensure we'd be able to make it to our morning flight after returning the rental car. So very kind of Delta to make this experience even more miserable. 

In any case, we arrived the following morning, August 19, and I was wearing a different shirt.

Was the word “poop” going to be deemed too offensive for flight, too? Perhaps those who want to preserve the status quo in which insurers can kick people off insurance for being “too expensive” and be denied coverage for having a pre-existing condition would find my shirt upsetting? Perhaps an Aetna shareholder, already upset over the fact that the company was publicly shamed into paying my $118K+ in medical bills, would see my shirt, realize who I was, and would be unwilling to fly alongside a known enemy of God’s Very Own Free Market? Would Delta acquiesce to those complaints, as well?

It turned out Delta had a different plans to screw with me. While my wife was assigned a seat when we checked in, I was instead simply given a piece of paper saying I was “confirmed” in lieu of an actual boarding pass. And being “confirmed” didn't actually mean would necessarily ever be getting on that plane. With the flight oversold, my only hope was that eight passengers would accept Delta’s offer of a voucher and take a later flight. Luckily, Delta convinced enough people to take the voucher, so I wasn't involuntarily re-booked yet again.

Given the threat I supposedly posed the previous night and the extent to which I made people uncomfortable even without my shirt, it's interesting how things ended up working out for the flights we finally took to return us to Phoenix: I ended up being assigned a bulkhead seat with extra leg room on the first flight and didn’t have to pay the extra surcharge for it and got an exit row for the second flight, likewise without paying additional for that privilege.

So, fortunately, we did make it home without too much trouble (aside from the worries regarding whether we'd actually get seats) the morning after we had intended to get home.

But the larger question remains: why'd this happen? Clearly, the problem originates with the paranoid minds of my fellow passengers who misconstrued a shirt mocking the overwrought security process as a terrorist threat. And, despite the protestations of the Delta manager, who I am was more important than what I was wearing. Once again, to quote myself from a tweet I’d posted: “Last night's lesson: mock the security charade or offend racists by being brown and @Delta won't let you fly.”


There are certainly some reasonable questions one can ask of this entire incident. As a friend asked via Twitter: where should we draw the line when it comes to what people can and can’t say in airports and what counts as “crying fire in a theater” territory? 

The distinction I would make is the same one that was made by the Supreme Court inCohen vs. California (h/t Matthew Davis for reminding me of this case in a comment onmy Storify account of this incident). In that case, the majority of justices were willing to distinguish between  speech and conduct. I was doing nothing more than wearing a shirt that poked fun at our national willingness to give up our freedoms in the face of fear. A satirical t-shirt doesn’t constitute a threat, and the TSA officers who interrogated me conceded as much. My shirt was speech, not conduct.

Certainly one can go too far, but my shirt was most definitely not threatening. It didn’t, for instance, read: “I Will Bomb This Plane.” There's a clear difference between mocking the charade that is our security process and its fear of dark-skinned men and shoes and liquids, and making an actual threat. My t-shirt was in no way akin to making a threat of bombing the aircraft I was hoping to board. Or as a friend commented on Twitter: “But the t-shirt didn't even say "this plane will be blown up." It was making fun of impotent bureaucracy. So more like wearing a tshirt that said "Local Volunteer Firefighter Brigade 202 Are Poopy Heads."”

It is worth noting that once TSA was involved and had to question me about the meaning of my shirt, they did treat me with the utmost respect and without any malice. Indeed, the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly. The same cannot be same about Delta or NFTA transit police. Shortly afterwards, I labeled the transit police as being “thuggish brutes” and I stand by that characterization. As for Delta, their actions could be at best described as cowardly and racist. (There’s much wrong with the TSA and the entire airport security operation — to wit — but in this case, the TSA agents I personally interacted with were courteous and professional.)


What Now?: File A Complaint

So, what now? Well, fortunately we can all complain. Loudly. And to everyone. There are multiple actors who acted wrongfully in this case, and all should be called out and officially reprimanded for doing so. There are multiple avenues through which we can air our grievances regarding this situation.

Write to Delta, their CEO, to the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Transit Police, and to the feds who are in charge of ensuring that passengers do not have their civil rights violated. 

Demand justice. Maintaining the safety of the flying public should not mean the abrogation of civil rights of dark-skinned passengers.

(Our flight was Delta #1176, BUF to ATL, August 18, 2012)

  • A complaint may be filed with the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Transit Police by calling 716-855-7660 and asking to speak to a supervisor. You can also file a written complaint with the NFTA Transit Police by downloading their complaint form here:

Medicare- Facts and Fiction!

Republican attacks on President Obama's plans for Medicare are growing more heated and inaccurate by the day. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made statements last week implying that the Affordable Care Act would eviscerate Medicare when in fact the law should shore up the program's finances.

Both men have also twisted themselves into knots to distance themselves from previous positions, so that voters can no longer believe anything they say. Last week, both insisted that they would save Medicare by pumping a huge amount of money into the program, a bizarre turnaround for supposed fiscal conservatives out to rein in federal spending. The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED "RAID ON MEDICARE" A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has "cut" $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured. "So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you," the ad warns.

What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.

In reality, the $716 billion is not a "cut" in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.

One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.

And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.

NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.

Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.

If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.

NO BANKRUPTCY LOOMING The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program's solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going "bankrupt"; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives.

The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.

DEFICIT REDUCTION Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan said last week that they would restore the entire $716 billion in cuts by repealing the law. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that repealing the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.

The Republicans gave no clue about how they would pay for restoring the Medicare cuts without increasing the deficit. It is hard to believe that, if faced with the necessity of fashioning a realistic budget, keeping Medicare spending high would be a top priority with a Romney-Ryan administration that also wants to spend very large sums on the military and on tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

Regardless of who wins the election, Medicare spending has to be reined in lest it squeeze out other priorities, like education. It is utterly irresponsible for the Republicans to promise not to trim Medicare spending in their desperate bid for votes.

THE DANGER IN MEDICARE VOUCHERS The reform law would help working-age people on modest incomes buy private policies with government subsidies on new insurance exchanges, starting in 2014. Federal oversight will ensure a reasonably comprehensive benefit package, and competition among the insurers could help keep costs down.

But it is one thing to provide these "premium support" subsidies for uninsured people who cannot get affordable coverage in the costly, dysfunctional markets that serve individuals and their families. It is quite another thing to use a similar strategy for older Americans who have generous coverage through Medicare and who might well end up worse off if their vouchers failed to keep pace with the cost of decent coverage.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would allow beneficiaries to use vouchers to buy a version of traditional Medicare instead of a private plan, but it seems likely that the Medicare plan would attract the sickest patients, driving up Medicare premiums so that they would be unaffordable for many who wanted traditional coverage. Before disrupting the current Medicare program, it would be wise to see how well premium support worked in the new exchanges.

THE CHOICE This will be an election about big problems, and it will provide a clear choice between contrasting approaches to solve them. In the Medicare arena, the choice is between a Democratic approach that wants to retain Medicare as a guaranteed set of benefits with the government paying its share of the costs even if costs rise, and a Republican approach that wants to limit the government's spending to a defined level, relying on untested market forces to drive down insurance costs.

The reform law is starting pilot programs to test ways to reduce Medicare costs without cutting benefits. Many health care experts have identified additional ways to shave hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending over the next decade without harming beneficiaries.

It is much less likely that the Republicans, who have long wanted to privatize Medicare, can achieve these goals.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 19, 2012, on page SR10 of the National edition with the headline: Truth and Lies About Medicare.
This is what we do know about what Republicans intend overall:

Romney/Ryan budget:
- would not balance federal budget for 28 or more years
- would revoke tax breaks such as mortgage-interest deductions, and others

Romney/Ryan Medicare:
- would require seniors accept fixed payments
- would require citizens at age 55 choose vouchers, private insurance, or Medicare
- vouchers would not necessarily cover Medicare
- would raise qualifying ate to 67 by 2034
- would cap spending at $7,400 per person
- would require average senior pay $1,200 to $2,400 a year

Romney/Ryan tax policy:
- would keep Bush tax cuts
- would ADD $4.5 trillion in cuts through 2022
- would replace six-tax-rates with two: 10% and 25%
- would eliminate alternative minimum tax
- would cut corporate taxes
- would repeal tax breaks for low-income families with children
- would increase taxes for bottom 1/5 of households
- would increase taxes average $1,000 for households earning $10,000 to $20,000
- would cut taxes $265,000 over 10 years for those making $1 million and more a year
- would lower or eliminate tax on capital gains, interest and dividends, etc.

Romney/Ryan Medicaid
- would cut aid for poor, disabled, and health care for children
- would transfer remaining funding to states as block grants
- would repeal expansion of aid in current law
- would repeal Affordable Care legislation

Romney even suggested vouchers to replace VA care.
Nothing isn't expendable with the Republicans!
Best wishes always,
Bill Harasym

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Olympic swimmers pee in the pool!


TheYoungTurks just uploaded a video:

"Carly Geehr has answered one of life's eternal questions: Do Olympians pee in the pool? The answer, is, yes, but the extent to which this is true may disturb many. Geehr, a former USA Swimming National Team Member, decided to provide the icky details when faced with the question on Quora...".* Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, and Dave Koller discuss on The Young Turks.

*Read more here from More