Here is a news article: UPDATE (Dec. 15, 2016 4:55 p.m.): According to the autopsy, five of the seven bullets fired by Officer Selman hit Francisco Serna. At least one bullet went through Serna. Three hit a neighbor's home.

 =====================================

 UPDATE (Dec. 14, 2016 4:30 p.m.): The cause of death of Frank Serna was multiple gunshot wounds, and the manner of death was a homicide, according to KCSO.

 =====================================

 UPDATE (Dec. 14, 2016, 11:09 a.m.): According to the Bakersfield Police Department, 73-year-old Francisco Serna had a dark-colored simulated woodgrain crucifix between his shirt and jacket when he was shot. The object was not found in his hand.

 BPD officers were not wearing body cameras and there is no dashcam footage of the shooting. According to ABC News, there were at least seven shots fired. It is unclear how many times Serna was actually hit.

 The 73-year-old was suffering from early stages of dementia and leaves behind five children, 16 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.

 The family claimed that Serna was lying naked in the driveway. The man was completely clothed and covered in a yellow tarp until crime lab photographer arrived to take pictures.

 The coroner's officer showed up and cut the man's clothes off to search him, according to the family.

 An autopsy was being performed Wednesday.

 ======================================

 UPDATE (Dec. 13, 2016, 10:52 a.m.): According to Bakersfield police, no gun was found at the scene and Sergeant Gary Carruesco does not know what - or if - 73-year-old Francisco Serna was holding anything when he was shot by a BPD officer.

 Sgt. Carruesco shared that even if officers are aware ahead of time that someone at the residence has a history of a mental disease, they do not approach the scene any differently. Whatever Serna was doing that was threatening has not yet been determined.

 Information about whether non-lethal force was administered will be released later today.

 =======================================

 UPDATE (Dec. 12, 2016, 6:15 p.m.): No gun was found at the scene, according to BPD.

 =======================================

 A man is dead after he was shot and killed by Bakersfield Police early Monday morning in Southwest Bakersfield.

 According to police, the man, who has been identified by family as 73-year-old Francisco Serna, was brandishing a gun at around 12:30 a.m. in the area of Silver Birch Avenue and Alderpointe Street.

 After making contact with Serna, police say an officer fired several shots, hitting and killing him. It's not known how many shots were fired. Family say eight shots were fired.

 Family says Serna had been suffering from the early stages of dementia and had police called to his home several times without incident.

 Family members also say Serna did not own a gun. Bakersfield Police say they are searching the scene for the gun that Serna was allegedly brandishing.

 No officers were hurt. ||||| The elder Serna lived with his wife and one of his daughters. Another son lives a few blocks from where the shooting occurred. Rogelio Serna said his parents moved into Bakersfield about eight years ago, leaving Wasco so they could be closer to their children. ||||| BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (AP) — A Bakersfield police officer answering a report of a man with a gun shot and killed an unarmed 73-year-old as he stood in a neighbor's driveway, authorities said. The man's family said he was in the early stages of dementia.

 Francisco Serna was declared dead at the scene about 1:15 a.m. Monday, the Kern County coroner said in a statement.

 Police had arrived about 12:30 a.m., and when a witness pointed to Serna, one officer fired several rounds and killed him, Bakersfield police spokesman Sgt. Gary Carruesco tells KBAK-TV and the Los Angeles Times.

 No gun was turned up in a search of the scene, Carruesco said.

 Serna's son said his father had worked at a cotton gin in California's Central Valley until retiring about a dozen years ago.

 "My dad did not own a gun. He was a 73-year-old retired grandpa, just living life," Rogelio Serna told the Times. "He should have been surrounded by family at old age, not surrounded by bullets."

 Rogelio Serna said his father had been suffering from delusions and other early signs of dementia that had appeared to be getting worse in the past month. His father often took late-night walks alone to tire himself out, he said.

 Police had visited the house twice before because his confused father activated a medical alarm, Rogelio Serna said.

 The coroner said an autopsy would be performed on Francisco Serna. ||||| Bakersfield police say an elderly man who was fatally shot by officers in southwest Bakersfield did not have a gun at the time of the shooting.

 Francisco Serna, 73, was shot and killed early Monday morning in the 7900 block of Silver Birch Avenue. His son Frank Serna told 17 news his father would take walks around the neighborhood quite frequently and had been showing early signs of dementia and was on medication.

 Police said around 12:30 Monday morning officers received a call about a man who was carrying and show a handgun. Police also said the man was not complying to their requests. But the family says Serna never owned a weapon.

 Police said the shooting remains under investigation. The officers involved have been placed on administrative leave. |||||
A summary of this is?

– Family members are demanding answers after they say a police officer fatally shot an unarmed 73-year-old man with dementia in Bakersfield, Calif., on Monday. Authorities say they were responding to a call about a man brandishing a gun outside a home around 12:30am when a witness on the scene pointed to Francisco Serna, standing in a neighbor's driveway, reports the Los Angeles Times. Police say an officer opened fire after Serna failed to comply with requests, per KGET; family members tell KERO that eight shots were fired. Serna was pronounced dead at 1:15am, per the AP, but investigators say a search turned up no gun. "My dad did not own a gun," says Serna's son. "He was a 73-year-old retired grandpa, just living life." Rogelio Serna adds his father had been showing signs of dementia since last year and police had previously visited his home—on the same block where the shooting occurred—at least twice when a disoriented Serna activated a medical alarm. His condition appeared to have worsened in the last month, Rogelio Serna says. His father had difficulty sleeping and sometimes walked late at night to fatigue himself before bed. "He should have been surrounded by family at old age, not surrounded by bullets," his son says.


News article:

Jesse Jackson Jr. and wife Sandi: From power couple to prison inmates BY NATASHA KORECKI AND LYNN SWEET Staff Reporters

 Updated:

 WASHINGTON — They were congressman and alderman, candidate and campaign chief.

 They are also husband and wife, father and mother.

 And on Wednesday, in an extraordinary sentencing hearing, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Sandi Jackson added another layer of complexity to their relationship: Both will be prison inmates.

 Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was sentenced to 2 1/2 years behind bars for stealing $750,0000 from his campaign fund while former Ald. Sandi Jackson (7th) is to serve one year for filing false tax returns.

 Sandi Jackson, 49, appeared stunned by the imposition of a prison term, her face frozen and drained of color after the judge ordered a 12-month sentence that offers no ability to earn time off for good behavior.

 The former alderman later retreated to her defense chair and dropped her head. Sandi Jackson’s lawyers had vigorously argued for probation.

 The former congressman received half of the nearly five years he could have faced. Jackson Jr., 48, who had been blowing his nose and sobbing during his remarks to the judge, appeared to break into a half-grin as the news of the sentence settled in.

 U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson took the unusual step of allowing the Jacksons -- parents of a 13 year old and 9 year old — to stagger their sentences. And in one of the more surreal moments of the proceedings, the judge recessed to allow husband and wife to confer over who would go to prison first. It was determined to be Jesse Jackson, who will report around Nov. 1.

 “There may be blurred lines for congressmen to follow when their lives are political. This case did not come near those areas,” said Judge Jackson (no relation). She said to impose no prison time would mean there was one set of rules for the “well-connected and one for everybody else. I cannot do it and I will not do it.”

 The judge rejected Jackson Jr.’s mental health issues as a defense saying that his string of accomplishments in life — propped up by a political family dynasty — “points to only one conclusion, and that is that you knew better.”

 She said Jackson could not claim his bipolar disorder as a mitigating factor because his series of purchases “were not all sudden and extraordinary purchases.”

 “This was a knowing, organized misconduct that was repeated and then covered up over the years,” the judge said.

 Still, she lauded Jackson Jr. for his accomplishments as congressman, saying he went beyond just doing his job. That included bringing clean drinking water to Ford Heights. She also praised a record he once held for not missing a vote in Congress in 13 years.

 The judge’s remarks came after emotional pleas from both Jacksons.

 The former congressman, addressing the court, stopped several times before the judge, to blow his nose in a tissue. At one point, he tried talking but whispered “I can’t see” because his crying was fogging up his glasses.

 “I didn’t separate my personal life from my political life, and I couldn’t be more wrong,” he said. “I take responsibility for my actions.” He added: “I am the example for the whole Congress.”

 He asked to be sent to a prison camp in Montgomery, Ala.

 “I want to make it a little inconvenient for everybody to get to me,” he muttered through tears.

 If the judge rejected the mental health defense, she appeared equally unimpressed by Sandi Jackson’s contention that she should escape prison because she needed to be there for her children.

 “I stand before you today asking for mercy,” Sandi Jackson said. “I ask to continue to provide for my children.”

 Sandi Jackson’s attorney, Dan Webb, implored the judge to allow his client to work off her sentence as community service. “To take the mother away … would be an unbearable burden on these two children,” Webb said.

 The judge later addressed the issue.

 “The message has not been subtle. The pleadings have laid this on very, very thick,” the judge replied. “It is not the court that put your children in this position. It is not the government that put your children in this position.”

 She cited spending of campaign funds that included $5,000 in furs and parkas “in one day,” spa trips, Disney trips and expenses in Las Vegas, then ordered Sandi Jackson to pay $22,000 in restitution separate from what her husband owed.

 The judge made clear that Sandi Jackson was not sentenced to a year and a day, which could have qualified her for good time and would have meant she would have effectively served 10 months in prison. Instead, under the rules of federal sentencing, she will serve a longer sentence with the judge sentencing her to one year.

 A prison term for the once-powerful Jesse Jackson Jr. marks a spectacular fall from grace for the son of the famed civil rights leader, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Before court, the elder Jackson and his family took part in a prayer circle led by Bishop Gordon Simon of Tri-State Baptist Church in Chicago.

 The younger Jackson easily sailed to re-election term after term in his South Side and south suburban 2nd Congressional District.

 All told, he spent 17 years serving the district until he resigned in disgrace last November.

 On Wednesday, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, upon seeing his son in the Washington, D.C., federal courthouse cafeteria, stood up and warmly embraced him. Jackson’s brothers, Yusef and Jonathan, as well as his sister, Santita, also greeted their brother as the family huddled in the cafeteria just before facing a federal judge.

 It was clear the day was expected to bring anguish for the incredibly public family: The Jacksons had hired a public relations consultant who was on hand, as was Judy Smith, the crisis counselor who inspired the ABC hit series “Scandal.”

 The senior Jackson later issued a statement saying he was proud that his son stood in court and accepted responsibility for his actions.

 “He was remorseful. He is recovering. He has highs and lows. I have a greater appreciation for it now,” the reverend said. “He turned to us as a family and said that ‘I let you down.’ ... I think we let him down, I may have missed the signs and I was apologetic to him.”

 Even in a state like Illinois, where governors, aldermen and congressmen have routinely gone to prison, the Wednesday hearing was remarkably rare as it involved a powerful couple who together saw their political demise in the same courtroom.

 “There’s no exact parallel,” said Dick Simpson, a longtime political observer and former Chicago alderman. The closest parallel is Illinois having four of the last seven governors in prison, he said.

 Simpson added that from 1976 to 2011 there were 18,069 corruption cases in Illinois. “There have been a couple of husbands of wives, but I don’t remember any that parallel the Jacksons,” he said. “Jesse Jr. was sort of African American royalty. He was seen as a rising star, who could have been governor, senator maybe mayor.”

 The rejection of some of their arguments notwithstanding, the judge did sentence both Jacksons to terms that were less than or at the low end of a federal guideline range. She credited each with admitting to the crimes and pleading guilty, sparing the government the expense of trial.

 Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Graves took exception to Sandi Jackson’s argument for probation. Graves said considered independently of her husband, Sandi Jackson’s case was one of the worst involving personal use of campaign funds that had “ever been documented.”

 Among the items Sandi Jackson purchased with the funds were “thousands of dollars at salons and spa treatments,” a Disney vacation and a subzero freezer for their Chicago home, he said. She spent tens upon tens of thousands of dollars using the credit card of her husband’s congressional funds. She filed falsified reports to the Federal Election Commission and knowingly signed off on IRS tax forms she knew were inaccurate.

 Graves noted the Jacksons’ combined income in 2011 was nearly $350,000, putting the couple among the top 10 percent household incomes in the country and giving them no financial need to steal.

 Graves also questioned Jackson Jr.’s medical condition, saying: “It’s quite clear there’s no ‘there’ there,” arguing that Jackson Jr. shouldn’t get a lighter sentence because of any medical issues.

 “Jesse Jackson Jr.’s journey from the halls of Congress to federal prison is a tragedy of his own making,” said U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen in a statement. “Jackson’s political potential was unlimited, but he instead chose to treat his campaign account as a personal slush fund, stealing from the people who believed in him so he could live extravagantly. He squandered his great capacity for public service through outright theft. The prison sentence imposed today should serve as a wake-up call to other public officials who believe there are no consequences for betraying the public trust.”

 Jackson’s attorney Reid Weingarten had argued that Jackson’s campaign spending included gray areas, like that of many congressman with “safe” seats.

 “This is not [Bernie] Madoff. This is not a Ponzi scheme. The courthouse is not ringed with victims demanding his head,” Weingarten said. “The goddess of justice would not weep at an 18-month sentence.”

 Later, Weingarten characterized it this way: “It’s a tragedy. The fall from grace was complete.”

 For his part, Jackson Jr. shied away from cameras as he left court. But he predicted he had yet to write another chapter.

 “I still believe in the power of redemption,” Jesse Jackson Jr. said. “Today I manned up and tried to accept responsibility for the errors of my ways, and I still believe in the resurrection.” ||||| The wife of former Illinois congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has been sentenced to one year in prison for filing false joint federal income tax returns that understated the income the couple received.

 Sandra Jackson admitted in a guilty plea earlier this year that from mid-2006 through mid-October of last year, she failed to report $600,000 in income that she and her husband earned from 2005 to 2011.

 Mrs. Jackson was a Chicago alderman before she resigned during a federal investigation of the couple.

 She was sentenced Wednesday along with her husband. Jesse Jackson Jr. was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after pleading guilty to engaging in a scheme to spend $750,000 in campaign funds on personal items. ||||| WASHINGTON – The end of the Jackson family political dynasty arrived Wednesday as a Chicago power couple ready-made for the cameras learned the next few years of their lives will be spent taking turns in prison.

 Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., the civil rights leader's son who once dreamed of becoming mayor or senator, and his wife, former 7th Ward Ald. Sandi Jackson, were tripped up by a taste for luxury that was bankrolled with $750,000 from campaign funds.

 On their day of reckoning, the Jacksons brought up a host of personal struggles in an effort to inspire sympathy: his reported mental illness, her series of miscarriages, the plight of their two children if they lost their mother to prison.

 In the end, the former congressman got 30 months in federal prison and could end up serving about five months less if he behaves behind bars. The former alderman got a year and stands to serve it all.

 Jackson Jr. was given until at least Nov. 1 to begin his prison term.

 Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson said supporters of the former congressman — including his own father — had urged her in letters to put him on probation. If she were to do so, she said, it would appear as if there were two systems of justice, "one for the well-connected and one for everybody else."

 "I cannot do it," she intoned. "And I will not do it."

 She shot down the notion, brought up by the defense, that elected officials once considered campaign accounts to be retirement funds.

 While acknowledging the good the Jacksons had done in office, she lambasted Jackson Jr.'s misdeeds as "knowing, organized, joint misconduct repeated and then covered up."

 She said Sandi Jackson was not a spouse who passively received the ill-gotten gains of crimes but one who knowingly spent thousands illegally on her personal whims. The judge noted that Sandi Jackson had served variously as campaign treasurer, campaign manager and consultant for the congressman.

 "You were a key player in the Jesse Jackson campaign. Together, you were the campaign," the judge told Sandi Jackson.

 "You are standing here to be sentenced because of your own significant and illegal conduct," the judge said.

 The Jacksons' sentences were lighter than prosecutors had recommended. They wanted four years for him and 18 months for her. Defense lawyers wanted him to serve 18 months.

 Sandi Jackson's lawyers did not get the probation they had sought for her, but they did get an order from the judge allowing her to remain free until her husband finishes serving his time.

 In another break, Jackson Jr. won't have to return $750,000 to his campaign fund, but must pay a $750,000 forfeiture as agreed when he pleaded guilty in February.

 Additionally, her plea deal called for her to pay $168,550, representing unpaid taxes, but the judge ordered her to pay only $22,000 in restitution. The sum represents money she misused from her own political accounts.

 The Jacksons cried as they addressed the judge separately before sentencing.

 "I didn't separate my personal life from my political activities, and I couldn't have been more wrong," said Jackson Jr., who paused to dry his eyes and blow his nose.

 Jackson Jr. apologized for his crimes and expressed regrets to his mother and father.

 "Your honor, throughout this process I've asked the government and the court to hold me and only me accountable for my actions," he said.

 He said he hoped that his wife could earn enough money in his absence to keep the family together. "When I get back, I'll take on that burden," he said. "By then I hope my children will be old enough that the pain I caused will be easier to bear."

 Sandi Jackson addressed the court after her husband. "I am a little nervous," she told the judge, "so I have a written statement that I would like to read to you."

 She continued: "I want to begin by apologizing first to my family, to my friends, my community and my constituents for the actions that brought me here today."

 She said she had caused "disappointment in my community" and had "put my family unit in peril."

 "My heart breaks every day with the pain this has caused my babies," she continued, weeping. "I ask to be parent, provider and support system that my babies will require in the difficult months ahead."

 Their children — a girl, 13, and a boy, 9 — were not in court.

 When the former alderman lost her bid for freedom, defense attorney Dan Webb said she wished to serve her term in a correctional institution in Marianna, Fla. The minimum-security facility is a prison camp about 65 miles northwest of Tallahassee.

 As for Jackson Jr., the judge said she would recommend he be placed in a federal prison camp in Alabama — he had stated that his first choice was one in Montgomery — or a prison in Butner, N.C. But the Bureau of Prisons will make the final call.

 Earlier in the hearing, Jackson Jr.'s lawyer, Reid Weingarten, said his client felt "horror, shame and distress" over his wrongs.

 But Weingarten also tried to downplay Jackson Jr.'s actions since he took money from his own campaign fund. It's not as if there are widows and orphans outside the courthouse who are victims and asking for his head, Weingarten said.

 "This is not Madoff. This is not a Ponzi scheme," the lawyer said. Bernard Madoff, now imprisoned in the Butner facility, is a financier whose Ponzi scheme led investors to lose their fortunes.

 Weingarten said Jackson Jr. "suffers from a very, very serious mental health disease." He identified the former congressman's illness as bipolar disorder and said it was relevant even though "we didn't plead guilty by reason of insanity."

 Matt Graves, an assistant U.S. attorney, countered that Jackson Jr.'s crimes represented one of the largest cases of theft from a campaign treasury ever prosecuted.

 Graves took a shot at Jackson Jr.'s reported bipolar disorder, saying when mental health issues are litigated in court, usually there is expert testimony, discovery and an examination of the defendant — and that none had occurred in the case.

 "When one looks at the facts," Graves said, "it's quite clear that there's no there there."

 He decried Jackson Jr.'s "wasted talent" and "what he threw away."

 Graves said Sandi Jackson's crimes were serious and had occurred over many years. He noted that defendants with children were given prison terms in courts across the country. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Jesse Jackson Jr. wept in court today, apologized for using $750,000 in campaign funds as his personal piggy bank, and then took his lumps: 30 months in federal prison and three years' probation, reports the Chicago Tribune. “I am the example for the whole Congress,” he said. “I understand that. I didn’t separate my personal life from my political activities, and I couldn’t have been more wrong.” The former Illinois congressman added an unusual request: He wants to serve his time in Alabama because "I want to make it a little inconvenient for everybody to get to me.” His wife, Sandi, then got sentenced to 12 months in prison for filing false tax returns about their income, reports AP. She wept, too. “My heart breaks every day with the pain this has caused my babies,” she said, referring to their two children, ages 9 and 13. Because of the kids, the judge will allow the Jacksons to stagger their sentences and to decide themselves who goes first, reports the Sun-Times. Interesting part noted by the Tribune: The judge made a point to sentence Sandi Jackson to exactly one year, not the more common one year and one day. The latter would have made her eligible for time off for good behavior. Now she must serve her full term.


Write a summary based on this article:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out

 of other people's money."

 —Margaret Thatcher

 With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

 While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

 • Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

 Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

 • Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

 • Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

 • Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

 • Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

 • Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

 • Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

 • Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

 Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

 Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

 Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

 Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

 At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

 Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

 Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

 Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

 Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

 Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc. ||||| Health Whole Foods CEO: Obamacare Is ‘Like Fascism’

 In an interview with NPR, Whole Foods CEO and self-professed libertarian John Mackey revived his previous criticism of Obamacare — but this time, with a new twist. While Mackey incorrectly denounced the landmark health reform law as “socialism” in a controversial 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed, the multimillionaire CEO has revised his assessment and now considers Obamacare — also incorrectly — to be closer to “fascism”:

 “Technically speaking, it’s more like fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it, and that’s what’s happening with our healthcare programs and these reforms.”

 Although fascist nations do often control their “means of production,” Mackey seems to have forgotten that they usually utilize warfare, forced mass mobilization of the public, and politically-motivated violence against their own peoples to achieve their ends. By contrast, Obamacare regulates some of the insurance industry’s shoddiest practices and imposes a small tax penalty on Americans who refuse to purchase government-subsidized private insurance.

 That hasn’t stopped other conservative critics of Obamacare from making similar statements. In 2011, former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum decried that America was falling into the throes of fascism, and that the health reform law was its “final death knell.” ||||| Eating And Health

 Whole Foods Founder John Mackey On Fascism And 'Conscious Capitalism'

 i itoggle caption Harry Cabluck/AP Harry Cabluck/AP

 UPDATE at 12:35 p.m., ET, Jan. 17: Many of you wrote in to tell us you were taken aback by Whole Foods top executive John Mackey characterizing the health law as fascism in an NPR interview, and apparently, he's feeling a little sheepish.

 About three minutes into his otherwise amiable chat with CBS This Morning hosts on on Thursday, Mackey walked back his comments in response to a direct question from Norah O'Donnell:

 "Well, I think that was a bad choice of words on my part ... that word has an association with of course dictatorships in the 20th century like Germany and Spain, and Italy. What I know is that we no longer have free enterprise capitalism in health care, it's not a system any longer where people are able to innovate, it's not based on voluntary exchange. The government is directing it. So we need a new word for it. I don't know what they right word is," Mackey says.

 i itoggle caption Whole Foods Market/Courtesy Harvard Business Review Press Whole Foods Market/Courtesy Harvard Business Review Press

 Part 1 of his interview with Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep is linked above, and you can hear him discuss the president's health care plan and his other philosophies here in Part 2, which aired Thursday.

 Our Original Post:

 No doubt, Whole Foods has played a key role in propelling organic foods into the mainstream. The specialty supermarket chain has more than 300 stores and plans to continue expanding. But Mackey is not the crunchy granola liberal one might conjure while perusing aisles of earnestly labeled blue corn chips and gently misted red peppers.

 He's a self-styled libertarian: a vegan who sells sustainably raised meat, a man who compares the government's health care overhaul to "fascism" but wants to improve American diets.

 And he thinks big businesses have an obligation to change customers' perception that big corporations are "primarily selfish and greedy." (Not that he's opposed to profits. In fact, Whole Foods posted a 49 percent boost in quarterly earnings in November.)

 Mackey sat down with Inskeep to discuss his philosophy and the new book he co-authored, Conscious Capitalism.

 Mackey tells Inskeep that companies must have a higher purpose than just making money.

 For example, when Whole Foods decided it wanted to stop selling overfished species of cod and octopus at its seafood counters, it didn't just abruptly cut off its suppliers. Instead, the company gave its suppliers three years to come up with a better way of fishing; during that time, the seafood stayed for sale — but with a label of "unsustainable."

 In the end, Whole Foods, working with the Marine Stewardship Council (we'll have much more on them later), was able to find one supplier of sustainable cod.

 "You take a risk when you do that because some of your customers ... who don't care about sustainability, they're going to go shop at your competitor's store who has the fish, so you lose some business that way," Mackey says. "But it was the right thing to do."

 What he doesn't think is right is President Obama's health overhaul and the new costs that coverage requirements will place on businesses.

 When Inskeep asks him if he still thinks the health law is a form of socialism, as he's said before, Mackey responds:

 "Technically speaking, it's more like fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn't own the means of production, but they do control it — and that's what's happening with our health care programs and these reforms."

 Still, Mackey sees room to cooperate with the administration on another front: efforts to reform the American diet, a pet project of first lady Michelle Obama.

 "People in America are addicted to sugar, and to fat and to salt," he says, and as a nation, it's holding us back. "Food is intensely pleasurable, and people are afraid that if they change the way they eat, they'll stop having pleasure."

 Still, he acknowledges how hard it can be to stick to a health-conscious diet. Restaurant meals, he says, rarely meet his personal dietary rules — not just no meat, but also no oil or refined flour. Luckily, Mackey jokes, there's a Whole Foods to be found wherever he travels.

 So our question to you, dear readers, is this: How big a role does a business leader's personal philosophy play in your decision to buy products from his or her company? Tell us in the comments section below. |||||

– Thought Whole Foods founder John Mackey would be an Obama-loving liberal? Not so much. The self-described libertarian, who has compared ObamaCare to socialism in the past, now says "it's more like fascism." The quote comes from a new interview with NPR, and continues: "Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it—and that’s what’s happening with our healthcare programs and these reforms." But, writes Sy Mukherjee on ThinkProgress, Mackey has apparently forgotten that fascist nations also "usually utilize warfare, forced mass mobilization of the public, and politically motivated violence against their own peoples to achieve their ends." ObamaCare, on the other hand, "regulates some of the insurance industry’s shoddiest practices and imposes a small tax penalty on Americans who refuse to purchase government-subsidized private insurance."


Write an article based on this summary:

– A pizza deliveryman confronted by workers at a Massachusetts car dealership over $7 may soon reap the financial rewards of staying cool under pressure. Employees at Westport's F&R Auto Sales gave Jarrid Tansey two $20 bills and two $5 bills for an order just over $42, the Boston Globe reports. Tansey says he confirmed the extra $7 was his tip and left, but F&R employees called his manager to make him return and give the money back. It's all on videotape: When Tansey tells them, "I'm not mad, I just had to waste my resources coming back here," it fans the flames: One woman tells Tansey as he's leaving to get "out the door before I put my foot in your a--"; a man pipes in, "Get the f---ing owner and the manager on the phone, I want that mother-f---er … fired." The video ended up on LiveLeak, and viewers rallied to Tansey's side. Former waitress Amanda Rogers was so angry that she set up a GoFundMe page for him, CNN reports. Her efforts have raised more than $21,000 as of this posting, with many of the donations in (appropriately enough) $7 increments. "We will [sic] like to apologize for the actions that led to this situation, this embarrassing video gone viral on the Internet, was not released by any employee of F&R Auto Sales," says a statement from F&R's sales manager. The company's Yelp reviews may say it all: Although it can't be said for sure how many reviews were influenced by the video, most of the 2,100 or so ratings there are one star.

(CNN) Seven dollars multiplied by empathy on an online fundraising page equals more than $11,000 for a pizza delivery guy who received an apology for how he was treated at a Massachusetts business.

 The sales manager of a Westport car dealership has apologized "for the actions" of employees caught on camera "belittling" the delivery driver. The conversation in an office focused on whether the driver believed he had received a tip or should have made change for the order.

 "We will [sic] like to apologize for the actions that led to this situation, this embarrassing video gone viral on the Internet, was not released by any employee of F&R Auto Sales," Gary Batista, sales manager for the business, said in a statement provided to CNN.

 A GoFundme.Com page set up by a woman who saw the video had raised $11,500 for the driver by Thursday night.

 The situation began Saturday, when Palace Pizza delivery guy Jarrid Tansey delivered $42 worth of pizzas and drinks to the dealership. He was paid $50 in two $20s and two $5s, said Palace Pizza manager Adam Willoughby.

 When he returned from the delivery, someone from the car dealership called Willoughby, asking for the driver to return with change -- roughly $7 and some coins.

 The video begins when Tansey returns to the dealership with the money.

 Upon handing over the change to a man seated behind a desk, Tansey can be heard saying, "It just doesn't make sense why you'd hand me a bill that you were just gonna have me drive back here to give you back anyway."

 The man says to Tansey, "I gave you everything they gave me so we would get the correct change."

 The two go back and forth a few more times, neither giving up his position.

 "I'm not mad, I just had to waste my resources coming back here," Tansey says as he starts to leave.

 The man says to Tansey, "The manager apologized once for you, do you want him to apologize again for you?""

 Tansey responds, "You got your $7 back, so the world is right now."

 One female employee follows Tansey out of the office, saying to him, "Out the door before I put my foot in your a**," which prompts her co-workers to erupt in laughter.

 That woman's employment has since been terminated, according to Batista's statement. One of those involved was not an employee, he said.

 The video ends after another man, also using expletives, instructs his colleague to get Tansey's "owner and manager" on the phone.

 "I want him fired," he says.

 Amanda Rogers, a former waitress, was so moved after seeing Tansey's video on LiveLeak, she called the pizza shop to find out the driver's name so she could send him a check.

 "For them to call him back over money he should've received anyway," Rogers said, "I decided to take it one step further."

 "Why not get the kid more than he deserves?" she said.

 Rogers set up the fundraising page for Tansey. It's entitled "Get Jarrid his tip money!"

 Many are leaving donations in $7 increments, the amount Tansey drove back to return to the dealership. One commenter wrote, "You are a good example of someone treating people the way you want to be treated."

 Rogers, who was a stranger to Tansey and his wife before this all started, said she hopes the response would prove that, "people are actually nice out there."

 The video, seemingly shot by a stationary surveillance camera, was initially posted on YouTube with the headline "irate pizza driver." It has since been made private, and it's unclear who posted it, though Batista said in his statement the person is not an employee of F&R Auto Sales and had no authorization to do so.

 Batista said the owner and proprietor plan to offer Tansey a cash donation, though his statement doesn't specify how much or whether they've spoken to the driver.

 Willoughby said the son of the owner of the dealership stopped by Palace Pizza on Wednesday to offer an apology in person.

 Willoughby said the response at Palace Pizza has also been overwhelming.

 "It's been tough to make pizzas with all the calls we've taken," he said. ||||| A video of car dealership employees in Westport getting into a heated argument with a local pizza delivery man over $7 has led to Internet anger and a personal apology.

 The video, posted on Liveleak, begins with a delivery man returning $7 in cash to the dealership that he had thought was a tip. By the end of the video, one dealership worker threatens to “put my foot in your ass” and another says he will call the delivery man’s manager and get him fired.

 (Warning: The video contains some NSFW language.)

 Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

 The delivery man in the video is an employee at Palace Pizza named Jarrid Tansey, according to two employees there. Lianette Hernandez, a cook and cashier, and Adam Willoughby, a manager, confirmed the video came from an interaction at the nearby dealership F&R Auto Sales on Saturday.

 The total bill for the pizza and drinks was just over $42, Hernandez said, and dealership workers gave Tansey $50 in two twenties and two fives. In the video, Tansey says he confirmed that they wanted to give the whole $50, and then left with what he assumed was a $7-and-change tip.

 However, the dealership then called the pizza place back and forced him to return the $7-and-change, and he was left without a tip, leading to the heated conversation on video.

 “It just doesn’t make sense why you’d hand me a bill that you were just gonna have me drive back here to give you back anyway,” Tansey says in the video. “I’m not mad, I just had to waste my resources coming back here.”

 But the office-workers are adamant about their position in the video.

 “So listen: The manager apologized once for you. Do you want him to apologize again for you?” the worker in blue says.

 “Out the door before I put my foot in your ass,” a female office-worker in green says.

 “Get the f---ing owner and the manager on the phone, I want that mother-f---er done,” another man in the office says after Tansey leaves. “I want him fired.”

 The video was originally posted on YouTube, but it has since been made private. However, a Google index of the video shows the title as originally being “irate pizza driver.” The angle of the video suggests it comes from a stationary security camera inside the dealership’s office.

 Willoughby, who was working that night, said he got a call from F&R Auto Sales saying that Tansey had “verbally berated” them. He said they took the call seriously at first and asked Tansey about the interaction. After Tansey explained what had happened, managers decided not to discipline the driver.

 “This isn’t the first time we have had problems with F&R Auto,” Willoughby said.

 “All the time, there’s always a problem, always an issue,” Hernandez said. “We’ve been going back and forth with them for a long time.”

 Palace Pizza has been getting supportive calls all day from across the country, and several people have pledged to raise or donate money for Tansey.

 In addition, the owner of the dealership and his son came by to apologize to Palace Pizza in person on Wednesday.

 “I was the manager on that night, and today they came and spoke to me, profusely apologized,” Willoughby said. “We both want to make things right between us. We don’t want any bad blood.”

 Commenters who claim to have seen the YouTube video before it was made private identify the dealership as F & R Auto Sales in Westport. Review pages of that dealership on Yelp and Google were being flooded with negative ratings on Wednesday. In addition, the dealership’s website struggled to load.

 Calls to the dealership through their main phone line did not go through. Messages left through the site’s Google Connect link, Facebook account, listed email, and on Twitter were not immediately returned. |||||


Article:
Brain Wars How the Military Is Failing Its Wounded

 A version of this story was co-produced with NPR and aired on All Things Considered. (Check here for local listings.)

 In 2007, with roadside bombs exploding across Iraq, Congress moved to improve care for soldiers who had suffered one of the war's signature wounds, traumatic brain injury.

 Lawmakers passed a measure requiring the military to test soldiers' brain function before they deployed and again when they returned. The test was supposed to ensure that soldiers received proper treatment.

 Instead, an investigation by ProPublica and NPR has found, the testing program has failed to deliver on its promise, offering soldiers the appearance of help, but not the reality.

 Racing to satisfy Congress' mandate, the military chose a test that wasn't actually proven to detect TBI: the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric, or ANAM.

 Four years later, more than a million troops have taken the test at a cost of more than $42 million to taxpayers, yet the military still has no reliable way to catch brain injuries. When such injuries are left undetected, it can delay healing and put soldiers at risk for further mental damage.

 Based on corporate and government records, confidential documents, scores of interviews and emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, our investigation found:

 The people who invented ANAM and stood to make money from it were involved in the military's decision to use it, prompting questions about the impartiality of the selection process. No other tests received serious consideration. A report by the Army's top neuropsychologist circulated last year to key members of Congress labeled the selection process "nepotistic."

 The Pentagon's civilian leadership has ignored years of warnings, public and private, that there was insufficient scientific evidence the ANAM can screen for or diagnose traumatic brain injury. The military's highest-ranking medical official said the test was "fraught with problems." Another high-ranking officer said it could yield misleading results.

 Compounding flaws in the ANAM's design, the military has not administered the test as recommended and has rarely used its results. The Army has so little confidence in the test that its top medical officer issued an explicit order that soldiers whose scores indicated cognitive problems should not be sent for further medical evaluation.

 Top Pentagon officials have misrepresented the cost of the test, indicating that because the Army invented the ANAM, the military could use it for free. In fact, because the military licensed its invention to outside contractors, it has paid millions of dollars to use its own technology.

 The military has not conducted a long-promised head-to-head study to make sure the ANAM is the best available test, delaying it for years. Instead, a series of committees have given lukewarm approval to continue using the ANAM, largely to avoid losing the data gathered so far.

 Several current and former military medical officials criticized the Defense Department's embrace of a scientifically unproven tool to use on hundreds of thousands of soldiers with TBIs.

 "The test was not developed for the purposes of identifying the kinds of problems that we see in concussions," said Dr. Stephen Xenakis, a retired brigadier general and former adviser on mental health issues to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The test was picked "without asking ourselves the questions: what are we trying to achieve here and what are we going to use the screenings for?"

 Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker acknowledged there have been problems with the testing program and called it a "first step."

 "The Army recognized all along that it was not an optimal test," Schoomaker said in a written statement to ProPublica and NPR. He added that the Army has tried to improve the ANAM test and is comparing it to alternatives.

 Many experts in the field say Congress' mandate for testing went beyond what science can provide. There is no computerized test that, on its own, allows doctors to diagnose TBI.

 Yet studies have indicated the ANAM shows promise when used immediately after a blast, helping doctors determine if soldiers are sharp enough to return to duty. Other studies, as yet unpublished, show the test may also be able to detect certain cognitive problems months after a brain injury.

 Those most familiar with the ANAM program insist that testing can be of significant value if used properly -- and that this is where the military has gone wrong.

 "We have failed soldiers," says retired Col. Mary Lopez, who used to manage the Army's testing program. "It is incredibly frustrating because I can see first-hand the soldiers that we've missed, the soldiers that have not been treated, not been identified, [or] misdiagnosed. And then they struggle."

 A Test to Identify Invisible Wounds

 On a crisp morning in early September, about 40 uniformed soldiers mill around outside a squat rectangular building on the Fort Lewis-McChord military base near Tacoma, Wash.

 They are scheduled to ship out to Afghanistan in a matter of weeks and must take the ANAM before they go. Filing into the testing facility, they take seats in front of computers.

 ANAM proctor Felix Rios, a former first sergeant who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, does a quick Power Point presentation on the test. There will be 20 minutes of questions covering basic math, memory and reaction time.

 Taking the ANAM is the first step in protecting soldiers from the effects of brain injuries, Rios tells the group.

 "One of the best ways to tell if something's affecting you is to know how you were before it happened. That's what you do here with ANAM," Rios says.

 The soldiers leave feeling comforted.

 "I felt reassured," Lt. Benjamin Lewis Westman said after completing the test. It was good, "knowing that the Army is taking steps to ensure people are taken care of."

 The military's foray into cognitive testing reflects the types of wounds troops have sustained fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 Soldiers have suffered an epidemic of concussions, also known as mild traumatic brain injuries, in bombings by insurgents. While most troops recovered quickly, some developed long-term cognitive problems. They couldn't think, read, write or remember the way they had.

 Too often, their injuries were missed on the battlefield and, even after they returned home, eluded more sophisticated scanning technology: Studies showed that up to 40 percent of troops who sustained concussions went undiagnosed.

 After a 2007 Washington Post series exposed the grim condition of soldiers with brain injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Congress pushed to create a program to screen soldiers for such wounds.

 It's not surprising that the military, under pressure to act quickly, looked to the ANAM. There's no scientific consensus supporting one computerized neurocognitive test among the half-dozen or so available.

 ANAM had been developed in-house. Starting in the early 1980s, scientists at Fort Detrick, the military's primary research base, conceived the test as a way to measure pilots' reflexes or to see if a paratrooper could think clearly after a rough landing.

 The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan spurred researchers to re-envision the test: Could ANAM help doctors assess cognitive damage from concussions? In the summer of 2007, as Congress pressed the military for a testing solution, the ANAM was administered to thousands of soldiers from the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell in Kentucky as part of a pilot program.

 "We had developed it ...and we owned it," said Lopez, who helped launch the pilot project, of the ANAM. "We pushed it and we ran as fast as possible because we knew we had a huge problem with TBI."

 The Inside Track

 Other factors also tilted the selection process in ANAM's favor, sparking a lingering debate over whether the interests of the test's developers trumped those of soldiers.

 In February 2007, researchers at Fort Detrick paid the publisher of the Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology to release a supplemental issue on ANAM, including several articles that endorsed its use in detecting traumatic brain injury. Some of the authors had a financial stake in the test, owning patents or trademarks on it, and others received military contracts and funding to help develop the ANAM, but the details of their interests weren't disclosed.

 Dr. Robert Kane, the ANAM researcher hired by the military lab to edit the journal issue, said that the journal didn't require such financial disclosures, but "in retrospect, patent information could have been provided."

 In October 2007, when the military convened a panel of experts to weigh the ANAM's pros and cons, the journal issue was among its primary sources of information, according to internal emails between panel members and senior military medical officials. In addition, several ANAM developers testified at the panel's sole meeting and one even sat on the committee.

 "It just screams conflict of interest," said Professor Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine who is now a senior lecturer on social medicine at Harvard Medical School. "I mean here you have a situation where the same people are sellers, buyers and evaluators."

 The ANAM patent and trademark owners interviewed for this article, including Col. Karl Friedl who helped develop the ANAM and was listed as a member of the scientific advisory panel, described their involvement in the deliberations as peripheral and said their financial interest in the test was small and had no bearing on their remarks.

 "Any inference that the government inventors would make money from DoD's use of the product and would recommend it for financial reasons are completely erroneous," said Kathryn Winter, one of the ANAM researchers who attended the meeting. Winter said she had made less than $5,000 in royalties from ANAM sales so far, though she could receive more in the future.

 Panel members were hardly blind to the ANAM's flaws. In their report, they noted there was no scientific proof that the test could work in the field and acknowledged that it hadn't been subjected to rigorous peer review.

 The committee recommended ANAM anyway.

 "Nobody was enamored of it, but there was a decision made to use it," said former Navy Capt. Morgan Sammons, a psychologist who served as a co-chairman of the panel.

 In May 2008, S. Ward Casscells, then the senior civilian Pentagon official in charge of health affairs, issued an order to use the ANAM across the military.

 Competitors who pitched other testing software maintain the playing field was slanted and that soldiers have been ill-served.

 "It remains unfathomable why the procurement process at the top was maneuvered so that soldiers were denied useful and usable screening tools for the signature injuries of these wars," said Don Comrie, chief executive of PanMedix, Inc., which markets a competitive test. "As a result we still don't know who was exposed to a blast and what, if anything, is wrong with them."

 Casscells and Schoomaker say the selection process was comprehensive and fair.

 But some researchers, including retired Lt. Col. Michael Russell, the head of the Army's testing program, say the National Hockey League managed to pick a better test than the Pentagon did.

 The NHL evaluated five tests, looking for the option that was most accurate, best supported by research, and easiest to use for trainers and players, many of whom were not English speakers.

 It chose the ImPact, a 20-minute computerized test that requires the athlete to remember and then reconstruct a series of designs and patterns. By the beginning of 2007, every player had taken a baseline test.

 Several NFL teams also use the ImPact, as does Army Special Forces, which said it based its decision on a review of scientific literature.

 Russell, the military's leading civilian neuropsychologist, called the ANAM a poor choice.

 "If they had said, would you like to use something else, I probably would have said, yes, I'd like to use something else," he said.

 Internal Skeptics Hobble Testing Effort

 During and after the selection process, the testing program was met with deep skepticism from top military medical officers, internal correspondence obtained by ProPublica and NPR shows.

 In a series of emails, Col. Charles Hoge, a leading Army psychiatrist, warned senior members of the medical command that the evidence supporting the ANAM, or any tool like it, was flimsy and that using it to screen soldiers for brain injuries could lead to misdiagnoses.

 "Rolling out ANY diagnostic or clinical test on a population level ... without objective and reliable criteria for how the data will be interpreted and used is malpractice," Hoge wrote in November 2007 to several senior medical officials.

 Lt. Col. Mike Jaffee -- a neurologist then in charge of the military's premier brain injury center and a member of the panel that recommended the ANAM -- responded that the military didn't have a better option. "There are currently no instruments that have been validated for blast or combat TBI," he wrote.

 The decision to use the ANAM was based on politics, not science, Jaffee acknowledged to Hoge.

 "The bottom line is because of the political situation we have been told that studying the situation before acting is not an acceptable option" to the Defense Department, he wrote.

 "Congress can mandate till the cows come home," Hoge shot back. "The right thing to do is to go back and help Congress to understand what is feasible and achievable."

 When Casscells issued the order to administer the ANAM to all troops before deployment, the Army's top medical officer pushed back.

 In a confidential email obtained by ProPublica and NPR, then Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker told Casscells that more than 30 military and civilian neuropsychologists, researchers and other experts had reviewed the ANAM at an Army symposium in June 2008.

 "All were very cautious about the application of this technology -- it is not FDA-approved for screening for a mild TBI/concussion and has not been evaluated for sensitivity/specificity in this setting," Schoomaker wrote. "Its use in this regard is fraught with problems."

 Three minutes later, Casscells dashed off a two-sentence reply -- "Thanks for these wise caveats. Your scholarly standards!" -- but his order stood. In a recent interview, Casscells said he and Schoomaker came to an understanding on the ANAM "that half a loaf was better than none."

 Schoomaker subsequently issued an order mandating the use of the ANAM across the Army, prompting another round of internal protests. In a November 2008 email, one senior adviser sent Schoomaker a Power Point presentation saying that ANAM test results were "misleading" and that using them could jeopardize the credibility of the military medical establishment.

 Faced with the backlash, Schoomaker modified his order, issuing a follow-up that limited the test's use in critical ways.

 He decided that soldiers would not have to take the test upon their return to the U.S. from the battlefield, though Congress required post-deployment testing by law.

 Schoomaker also ordered that soldiers who scored badly -- or "red" in testing lingo -- on their pre-deployment tests would not be referred for follow-up evaluations to see if they had an undiagnosed brain injury. In a written statement to ProPublica and NPR, Schoomaker said soldiers with symptoms were urged to see doctors, but not based on ANAM scores. "For some people 'red' is their normal score," he said of the test.

 Several neurologists, in and out of the military, said they considered Schoomaker's order to ignore low baseline scores to be unethical. The Navy and Marines, unlike the Army, refer troops for further attention if they score poorly on their pre-deployment ANAM.

 "It's our obligation as medical providers to our patients to try to figure out if there is something going on that needs to be treated," said Navy Commander Jack Tsao, a neurologist who runs the ANAM program for those branches of the service.

 Lopez said that by ignoring poor baseline scores, the Army risked sending soldiers with cognitive problems into war.

 "This is horrible and it goes against our medical ethics and moral responsibilities," she said. "They just lock up these results in a box and never look at them before clearing soldiers to deploy."

 Flaws in Implementation

 Despite the many concerns with the ANAM, many experts say the test could have helped detect brain injuries in soldiers if it had been used properly.

 Instead, the military has implemented the test in ways that have undercut its value, according to interviews and internal emails obtained by ProPublica and NPR.

 One example: Troops take the ANAM just once before deploying, even though some of the test's developers have found that users should take it several times to produce a more accurate baseline score.

 Without a reliable baseline, Russell and other specialists said, it's impossible to measure the change in a soldier's cognitive abilities after a blow to the head. In a 2010 report, one military researcher called the testing effort "fundamentally flawed" because of the lack of accurate baselines.

 More than 1 million soldiers have taken pre-deployment ANAM tests, but medical officials have requested test scores for comparative purposes just 11,000 times since 2008.

 Doctors face substantial obstacles in accessing the information.

 There's still no computer network that collects and stores test results or integrates them with the military's overall medical system. A doctor in Afghanistan who wants an injured soldier's pre-deployment score has to call into a hotline where an employee creates a PDF with the test results, manually deletes private information such as Social Security numbers, and emails or faxes back the file.

 Fewer than 3,000 requests for ANAM test results have been made from the war zones in the last three years, according to recent estimates. Yet more than 90,000 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries during that time, according to the military's official figures.

 Reports from the field indicate that the test is not being used consistently when soldiers sustain possible concussions.

 This summer, Robert Parish, a neuropsychologist treating troops in Afghanistan, sent an email to colleagues saying the ANAM was more useful than some thought but remained little-used.

 "I have corresponded quite a bit with the ANAM staff recently and discovered, quite to my astonishment, I am currently the only one in any combat theater who is actively using the [ANAM] database in evaluations," Parish wrote.

 "Free" Test Costs a Bundle

 When the military chose the ANAM, one of its selling points -- at least, in the eyes of some involved in the decision -- was that it was free.

 "The ANAM, as I understand it, was owned by the Department of Defense. It was developed in conjunction with the Army. So there was no cost to it," said Dr. Paul Hammer, director of the Defense Veterans Brain Injury Center.

 Lt. Col. Jaffee, who sat on the panel that recommended ANAM, has said in emails and slideshow presentations that ANAM was picked in large part because it was "the only tool available free of charge to DoD."

 But even though the ANAM was developed by military researchers, the Defense Department no longer owned the test by the time it went looking for a screening tool.

 This was not unusual: To spur innovation, the agency allows government scientists to license their inventions to outside businesses as long as the military shares in the profits.

 In February 2006, the lab that employed the ANAM researchers licensed the ANAM to the University of Oklahoma, which would help refine the test at its cognitive research lab. The university then struck a deal with Vista Partners, a contractor based in Colorado, to market the test and handle sales.

 So far, the university and Vista have sold the ANAM to a handful of civilian hospitals and researchers, but their biggest customer has been the military.

 The Defense Department pays Vista about $2 million a year in user fees for the ANAM, according to contracting documents and interviews. Oklahoma University gets a 12 percent cut of sales, sending a portion back to the military lab that invented the test. The Defense Department also pays the university $1 million a year for making improvements to the test, Russell said.

 On top of that, the military has paid Eyak Services, an Alaska-based contractor, $30 million over the last four years to give soldiers the ANAM test. An additional $6.8 million has gone to another contractor, Evolvent, to build an electronic system to collect and distribute test results, though this effort remains incomplete.

 The program's total price tag tops $42 million, records show.

 Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., who helped author the bill to create the program, is disappointed with the way the money has been spent.

 "This is not adequate," said Pascrell in an interview with ProPublica and NPR. "You're doing harm to these veterans and these wonderful warriors and their families, and we're not going to put up with it. This is not what we paid for."

 As Problems Emerge, Little Action

 Military officials openly acknowledged problems with the TBI testing program at two congressional hearings last year.

 In April, Dr. Charles Rice, the president of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, testified to a House Armed Services subcommittee that the ANAM might not accurately reflect soldiers' cognitive abilities. The next day, Schoomaker was even more blunt, telling lawmakers the test was no more accurate than a "coin flip."

 Following those hearings, Pascrell and two other congressmen requested a comprehensive report on the program.

 In September, Russell delivered a scathing 537-page report that slammed nearly every aspect of the ANAM program.

 The report -- which was obtained by ProPublica and NPR, but has never been released publicly -- begins by saying the "program's history is more troubled than commonly understood."

 Russell went on to lambaste the manner in which the test was chosen: "The selection of ANAM was nepotistic, and the long delay in examining alternative instruments is baffling."

 In the field, Russell said, the test had failed at "a basic level." It was unreliable and soldiers' scores often reflected factors such as fatigue that were unrelated to TBI.

 "This is unacceptable if the ANAM is to be considered a TBI test," Russell wrote.

 There was one bright spot amid Russell's criticism: Though the ANAM could not diagnose TBI, he said, it could help doctors evaluate when soldiers who had suffered concussions were mentally fit to return to duty.

 Overall, however, Russell concluded that the problems with ANAM were so severe that "it appears that we may be doing our soldiers a disservice with the present baseline program."

 Pascrell said he was infuriated by Russell's findings.

 "There is no question in my mind that the Department of Defense violated the very essence of the law that we passed" to require testing, he said. In particular, he said, he was frustrated by the lack of post-deployment testing and the delay in comparing ANAM to other tests.

 There are few signs that the changes Pascrell wants are imminent.

 When the military initiated the testing program in 2008, it also created a panel of civilian experts to monitor it and other TBI-related issues.

 At a meeting in August 2011, the panel discussed whether ANAM should be replaced, expanded, or used routinely post-deployment. Then it endorsed the status quo, partly to preserve the usefulness of data from tests already administered.

 The committee's recommendations could be "expressed in one sentence, which is 'Continue to do what we're doing with the ANAM, but don't do more at this point,'" said Dr. Kurt Kroenke, the Indiana University professor of medicine who led the discussion.

 When S. Ward Casscells, the former head of Pentagon official health affairs, ordered the ANAM into use in May 2008, he depicted it as an interim measure and promised the military would launch a comprehensive study comparing it with other brain-injury tests.

 Emails obtained by ProPublica and NPR show the comparison was supposed to be completed by November 2009, but it remains unfinished.

 A recent report from the Government Accountability Office said the Defense Department doesn't expect the results until 2015 -- two years after the last troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan. ||||| Military's Brain-Testing Program A Debacle

 The U.S. military has spent more than $42 million to test every service member's brain to find out who suffered a traumatic brain injury, or TBI, during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But an investigation by NPR and ProPublica has found that military leaders are refusing to carry out the testing program as Congress ordered. Partly as a result, the program that was supposed to fix things has hardly helped any of the troops.

 On a recent morning, four dozen soldiers who were about to be deployed to Afghanistan filed into a squat wooden building at Fort Lewis, in Washington state. For the next 20 minutes they would sit at rows of laptop computers clicking through the automated neural psychological assessment metrics computer program known as ANAM.

 i toggle caption Joaquin Sapien/ProPublica Joaquin Sapien/ProPublica

 Congress ordered the military four years ago to test all service members for cognitive brain functions at least twice — before they go to war, and again when they return.

 "One of the best ways to tell if something's affecting you is to know how you were before it happened. That's what you do here with ANAM. You'll take ANAM, and it's going to be your baseline," says Felix Rios, a contractor with the Office of the Surgeon General who helps administer the test.

 Soldiers like Sgt. Michael Persyn say they're glad they've taken this test.

 "It at least gives me a feeling that if ... there is something wrong with me, that they'll be able to know about it," he says.

 "I felt more reassured," says Benjamin Louis Westman, another soldier taking the test.

 But an investigation by NPR and ProPublica has found that these troops have little reason to feel reassured. From interviews with dozens of medical specialists and an analysis of hundreds of pages of military emails and documents, evidence shows that military officials have made poor decisions about the testing program, preventing it from helping many troops who have brain injuries.

 "We have failed. We have failed soldiers," says retired Col. Mary Lopez, who used to run the Army's testing program. She still works with soldiers in Germany. "It is incredibly frustrating because I can see firsthand the soldiers that we've missed, the soldiers that have not been treated, not been identified, misdiagnosed. And then they struggle."

 Problems Before Testing

 The NPR/ProPublica investigation found that the TBI testing program was plagued with problems before it even began. When members of Congress told the military to test all the troops to see how well their brains work, Congress was giving an order that's difficult to carry out.

 i toggle caption Becky Lettenberger/NPR Becky Lettenberger/NPR

 "The field is not caught up with Congress' mandate," says Alex Dromerick, who co-directs the Brain Research Center at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, in Washington, D.C. "Congress wants something that takes many years and a lot of research effort to develop."

 He also says a doctor with special training is needed to diagnose a TBI. A computer test can show you that someone's brain isn't working well, but there's no test on the market that can show why.

 "The test to meet Congress' specifications does not exist yet," Dromerick says.

 However, he and other brain specialists say, a good computer test can help doctors by providing a warning light if someone flunks the test. That could signal someone might be suffering from a brain injury and needs a medical evaluation.

 Hockey League May Have Better Solution

 Another problem with the program is that top military officials did not choose a very good test, according to the Pentagon's own medical advisers. They say the National Hockey League, whose players are constantly hitting the glass — and each other — has a better test to help spot brain injuries than does the U.S. military.

 Key Findings Of This Investigation An investigation by NPR and ProPublica has found that the ANAM testing program used by the military to identify soldiers with traumatic brain injuries has failed to deliver on its promise, offering soldiers the appearance of help, but not the reality. Four years later, more than 1 million troops have taken the test at a cost of more than $42 million to taxpayers, yet the military still has no reliable way to catch brain injuries in soldiers. When such injuries are left undetected, it can delay healing and put soldiers at risk for further mental damage. Based on corporate and government records, confidential documents, scores of interviews, and emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the investigation found: * The people who invented ANAM and stood to make money from it were involved in the military's decision to use it. No other tests received serious consideration. A report by the Army's top neuropsychologist circulated last year labeled the selection process "nepotistic." * The Pentagon's civilian leadership has ignored years of warnings that there was insufficient scientific evidence that the ANAM could screen or diagnose TBI. The military's highest-ranking medical official said the test was "fraught with problems." * Compounding flaws in the ANAM's design, the military has not administered the test as recommended and has rarely used its results. The Army has so little confidence in the test that its top medical officer issued an explicit order that soldiers whose scores indicated cognitive problems should not be sent for further medical evaluation. * Top Pentagon officials have misrepresented the cost of the test, indicating that because the Army invented ANAM, the military could use it for free. In fact, because the military licensed its invention to outside contractors, it has paid millions of dollars to use its own technology. Read more on ProPublica's website > UPDATE: Congressman Slams Military Testing Prorgram ProPublica: Brain Wars Series

 "We find that the testing program is very useful for our athletes," says Ruben Echemendia, a chief neurologist for the NHL.

 There are various computer brain tests on the market, just like there are different kits to test blood pressure, so to pick the best one, Echemendia assembled a Concussion Working Group with doctors, players' representatives and others.

 "All of the research in their tests, all of the peer-reviewed publications that they had, including the reliability and validity data with the tests, and it was fairly clear to us which program we wanted to use in our testing program," he says.

 ANAM was not that test. Instead, the NHL chose one called ImPact.

 According to Echemendia, the test can pinpoint problems in thinking, concentrating or reacting in about 30 percent of the players who say, "No problem, I feel fine," after slamming their heads.

 "Had we not been using these tests we may be returning these players back to play prematurely," he says.

 But sources in the military say that they didn't do any rigorous comparisons when choosing which test to administer. Instead, Pentagon officials were determined to use ANAM, which was developed by military researchers, despite concerns by their medical advisers.

 "The scientific advisory panel did not to the best of my recollection at any one time say the ANAM is the choice, is the instrument that should be used," says Morgan Sammons, dean of psychology at Alliant University in California, who was one of those advisers.

 The advisers warned there weren't many good studies on the test and that it's too sensitive. Test-takers who didn't sleep much or were distracted could get low scores, which might mistakenly lead doctors to treat them for brain injuries.

 "ANAM will never be a good population screening tool. It just doesn't have the ability to detect a concussion weeks or months out from the event itself," says Michael Russell, a neuropsychologist, who currently runs the Army's ANAM program. "If they had said, 'Would you like to use something else?' I probably would have said, 'Yes, I'd like to use something else.' "

 Doctors with the Special Forces insisted on using something else. They chose the same test that hockey players use.

 Ward Casscells, who despite some advisers' concerns made the decision to use ANAM when he was assistant secretary of defense, says he can't remember the details of the debate.

 "I think we reached an agreement on it that half a loaf was better than none, and we would watch this test closely to see how it could be improved," he says.

 A Third Problem

 Despite the test's flaws, studies show ANAM can help spot troops with brain injuries if military officials use it correctly. Top Pentagon officials ordered the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines to give ANAM to all their troops. But this led to a third problem: Many officials refuse — especially in the Army.

 Consider this scenario: A Marine is about to deploy to Afghanistan and takes the ANAM to get a baseline score. The results are terrible — showing poor reaction time and awful memory.

 Document On page 11 of this report obtained by NPR and ProPublica, it notes: Baseline ANAM testing will not be used to generate medical referrals. Information Paper: ANAM Program Use

 Jack Tsao, a Navy commander and neurologist who runs the traumatic brain injury programs for the Navy and Marines, says the answer for those services is easy: "Yes, if there's an abnormality we need to follow it up."

 He says it's possible that the Marine might just be tired, which could contribute to a low score. But it's also possible the Marine has brain damage from a previous deployment, which nobody has diagnosed. So the Navy issued an order that Marines or sailors who test poorly must be sent to a doctor for a follow-up.

 "Our obligation as medical providers to our patients who are service members is that we try to figure out if there is something going on, that needs to be treated," Tsao says. "We want to ensure that we are taking care of our service members' health needs."

 But Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, who runs the Army's medical system, issued a written order in November 2008 that said Army troops who score low on the ANAM test "will not" be referred for a follow-up medical evaluation.

 i toggle caption Mike Kane for NPR Mike Kane for NPR

 One top military doctor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she was afraid she would get in trouble if she used her name, calls Schoomaker's policy "unethical." Lopez, who used to run the Army's testing program, says the order hurts the troops.

 "The ANAM testers themselves will come back and say: 'I have a soldier right in front of me who says, "I was in a blast. I'm still having headaches. My memory is short." And I'm really concerned about this person's performance on this test,' " says Lopez. "And we can't tell the primary care provider."

 In a written statement, Schoomaker told NPR and ProPublica, "Of course, if the Soldier has any symptoms or problems with their health, they are encouraged to document this and discuss it" with a health care provider.

 Sources who have worked with Schoomaker told NPR and ProPublica that Schoomaker has banned follow-up evaluations based on ANAM partly because the Army has a shortage of trained medical staff.

 "Certainly our large medical centers are very well-staffed with good professionals. Where soldiers mobilize is often much more austere environments," acknowleges Russell. "There aren't a lot of professionals ... nearby who could quickly evaluate those people."

 Sources also said that Schoomaker and other commanders worry that if troops who score low on ANAM are referred for medical evaluations, it could postpone their deployments.

 'This Is Not What We Paid For'

 Since Congress ordered the Pentagon to test all the troops almost four years ago, the military has done half of what Congress asked — it has given the ANAM to 1 million people before they deploy. But the military has tested only a tiny fraction of the troops since they've come home. Roughly 1 million baseline tests are sitting in a file without a follow-up.

 Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., one of the key legislators who persuaded Congress to pass the law that ordered the Pentagon to test the troops, says this is not what Congress asked for.

 "The Army seems to be fighting us on this. This is not adequate. You're doing harm to these veterans and these wonderful warriors and their families, and we're not going to put up with it," Pascrell says. "This is not what we paid for. I don't believe our troops are being treated correctly."

 But military officials say they've recently begun an in-depth study to compare ANAM with other kinds of brain tests. They say they plan to select the best one, and use it the way Congress intended. Results are expected in 2015. That's more than two years after most of the troops are scheduled to come home.

 Continue reading more of this investigation on ProPublica.org. Daniel Zwerdling reported for NPR; Joaquin Sapien and T. Christian Miller reported for ProPublica. |||||Summary:

– A military brain-injury testing program has cost $42 million thus far—but hardly any soldiers have benefited from the plan, according to a joint investigation by NPR and ProPublica. Their reports suggest the program has a been a huge waste of money that has fallen way short of its primary mission—diagnosing brain injuries among the troops. “We have failed soldiers,” says a retired colonel who used to run the program. “I can see firsthand the soldiers that we've missed, the soldiers that have not been treated, not been identified, misdiagnosed. And then they struggle.” Congress in 2007 called on the military to test troops’ brain function before and after deployment to help fight the rising number of traumatic brain injuries. One big problem: The test ultimately chosen isn’t the best one available for the job, insiders say. What's more, the people who invented the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric and stood to gain financially from its use were involved in the military's decision to employ it. The Army thinks it's essentially useless at this point, even though soldiers continue to be tested with it. Read ProPublica's full piece here.


Here is a news article: Transformers: Age of Extinction SCIENCE FICTION/ACTION: United States, 2014 U.S. Release Date: 2014-06-27 Running Length: 2:45 MPAA Classification: PG-13 (Violence, Profanity, Painful Dialogue) Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1 Cast: Mark Wahlberg , Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor, Titus Welliver, Peter Cullen (voice), John Goodman (voice) Director: Michael Bay Screenplay: Ehren Kruger Cinematography: Amir Mokri Music: Steve Jablonsky U.S. Distributor: Paramount Pictures Subtitles: none

 Michael Bay has often said how he loves to "blow things up real good." Well, if that's his desire in life, there's little doubt that he tops himself in Transformers: Age of Extinction. This is as excruciating a movie as is likely to be experienced by anyone, anywhere. It isn't merely that the story is insulting, the characters are bland, the action is dull, and the CGI is everywhere - it's that all this goes on for nearly three hours. That's three hours of your life you'll never get back.

 Bay's argument is that the Transformers movies are made for the little kid in all of us. That might be true, assuming the kid is pugnacious, antisocial, afflicted with an attention span approaching zero, and lacking in anything remotely resembling a creative impulse. My inner child often delights in silly, loud, or otherwise unsophisticated films. Parts of Godzilla gave me chills. Misgivings aside, I'm looking forward to the next Star Wars. And, despite its recent precipitous nosedive, I still adore Doctor Who. But that inner child quails at the thought of enduring even one more minute of a Transformers movie. The only thing more epic about this film than its running length is its soullessness.

 Bay keeps saying he's done with the Transformers franchise but it draws him back like flies to shit. This time around, the human actors from the earlier films have been jettisoned. At first glance, that might seem like a good thing until one realizes that people in Bay films are as interesting and important as background décor. It's really all about the robots, the orgiastic display of CGI destruction, and (of course) the explosions. I wish I could say "just sit back and enjoy the ride", but there's a reason roller coasters are only a few minutes long.

 Is there a story here? It's not War and Peace but there's something that might be mistaken for the skeleton of a plot if viewed in dim light. For those who care about continuity, events in Transformers: Age of Extinction take place five years after those of the previous film, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. By this time, the Transformers have been virtually eliminated from Earth as a result of a ruthless cleansing scheme spearheaded by CIA Black Ops hotshot Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer in full Stinky Pete mode). Attinger has help from a Decepticon called "Lockdown" (voice of Mark Ryan), who has come to Earth in search of Optimus Prime (voice of Peter Cullen). The CIA bad guy has also formed an alliance with billionaire inventor Joshua Joyce (Stanley Tucci), who has figured out how to build Transformers. His pilot project is something he calls "Galvatron" (voice of Frank Welker) - a robot that looks an awful like the dreaded (and supposedly dead) Megatron.

 The basic thrust of Transformers: Age of Extinction follows the misadventures of four surviving Autobots - Bumblebee, Hound (voice of John Goodman), Crosshairs (voice of John DiMaggio), and Drift (voice of Ken Watanabe) - as they seek out Optimus Prime, who has been revived with the help of Texas mechanic Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg). Along with Cade, his daughter, Tessa (Nicola Peltz), and Tessa's boyfriend, Shane (Jack Reynor), the Autobots seek to avoid being captured or destroyed by Lockdown while possibly saving Earth from Galvatron. (Lockdown doesn't really care about humans - he just wants Optimus Prime.) Bay once again deals Chicago a gut punch but this time around he saves the real destruction for Hong Kong.

 In the acting department, Mark Wahlberg is an upgrade on Shia Labeouf, although it hardly matters. Walhberg does his job and stands around looking suitably awed, angry, or frightened, depending on what the script requires. Somehow, Stanley Tucci manages to rise above the material and leave an impression. It helps that he's used partially for comedic relief and gets to utter the best one-liner (one that uses up the movie's PG-13 single "f-word" allowance). Tucci's success is counterbalanced by Nicola Peltz's failure. The Transformers movies have had their share of annoying characters but none (not even the one played by Megan Fox) has achieved the apex occupied by Peltz's Tessa, who one-ups the worst horror movie heroine in terms of incompetence, ignorance, and irritation factor. On more than one occasion, I was actively rooting for a robot to stomp on her or for her to fall from a great height and make a satisfying splat. I guess this could be considered a step forward for Bay - he made me feel something about a human being in a Transformers film.

 In the end, there's a sense that nothing much happens in Transformers: Age of Extinction, although that "nothing" is long, loud, and flashy. Bay's approach, which is technically proficient but without charm or life, bludgeons viewers into a near-catatonic state. If one takes a step back and looks at Transformers: Age of Extinction from a distance, the story isn't confusing but, while watching it, the sense of chaos is almost overwhelming. Shakespeare didn't know it, but when he wrote of "sound and fury signifying nothing," he could have been describing this franchise.

 I understand that this is a "fanboy" driven production intended only to please those who either play with Transformers toys or have fond memories of doing so in their youth. However, it's disappointing to see how contemptuous the filmmakers are of anyone who pays good money to see a movie in the hope that it will offer more than cool special effects (that become progressively less "cool" the longer the film runs). This is blockbuster moviemaking at its worst - a product so cynical that it doesn't try to pretend it's anything more than a mindless spectacle. It's endless, tiresome, and tedious, but it will make so much money that Transformers 5 is a foregone conclusion. I can't think of a more compelling reason to hate Transformers: Age of Extinction.

 Discuss this topic in the ReelViews Forums. ||||| To give Bay his due, Transformers is a testament to advances in CGI. The tableau of a giant alien spaceship hovering over Chicago, for instance, is breathtaking. Moments like that are quickly drowned out in the excessive uproar of this clanking cinematic claptrap. Go if you must, but bring earplugs. ||||| Do you ever think to yourself, gee, I wish someone would beat on my skull with a hammer today?

 If so, you're in luck. �Transformers: Age of Extinction� will be in theaters everywhere starting Thursday night. As self-destructive cinematic experiences go, it can't be beat.

 As a movie, though, it is absolute garbage. Repetitive beyond belief, soulless and shamelessly, endlessly chaotic.

 This is, of course, the �Transformers� tradition, although the franchise's last installment showed some hope. But here director Michael Bay has elected to get back to basics � in other words, banging on audience skulls.

 The story: Good outer space robots are now in hiding and the CIA (why the CIA?) is hunting them down with the help of a bad outer space robot who probably has a name, but who cares?

 In Texas, a down-on-his-luck inventor named Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg) buys a beat-up semi truck and discovers it's actually the damaged Optimus Prime (biggest of the good robots). Despite the protestations of his beautiful teen daughter (Nicola Peltz), he nurses it back to health.

 Which is when the bad CIA guys show up, leading to endless battles and explosions.

 Prime gets what few surviving good robots exist back together, they team up with Yeager, daughter and a superfluous boyfriend (Jack Reynor), and all set out to do battle with government types, scientists, outer space robots and their clones. Explosions, explosions, junkyards battling, explosions. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

 The film was shot partly in Detroit, but mainly it's Chicago and Hong Kong that get torn to shreds over the next two hours and 45 minutes.

 Seriously, the next movie should just be called �Transformers: Hammer to the Skull.�

 People would still go. They might even pay extra.

 'Transformers: Age of Extinction'

 GRADE: D

 Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, language and brief innuendo. Running time: 165 minutes |||||
A summary of this is?

– Womp womp. According to critics, the Transformers franchise should have been kept to a trilogy. The fourth installment of this robot-smashing series, Transformers: Age of Extinction, is getting the nod from just 20% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes. The upside? It has a 74% approval rating from audiences. Here's what the critics had to say: "Do you ever think to yourself, gee, I wish someone would beat on my skull with a hammer today? If so, you're in luck," writes Tom Long at the Detroit News. Essentially, it's two hours and 45 minutes of "absolute garbage." It's "repetitive beyond belief, soulless, and shamelessly, endlessly chaotic." "To give Bay his due, Transformers is a testament to advances in CGI," David Hiltbrand explains at the Philadelphia Inquirer. But the stunning moments are "drowned out in the excessive uproar of this clanking cinematic claptrap," he writes, adding the noise itself "may cause hearing damage. ... Go if you must, but bring earplugs." How does Mark Wahlberg do in the starring role? Well, he's "an upgrade on Shia LaBeouf, although it hardly matters," writes James Berardinelli at ReelViews. "People in Bay films are as interesting and important as background decor." However, "Stanley Tucci manages to rise above the material and leave an impression." Bay doesn't seem "to understand or care where this noise goes anymore," writes Peter Howell at the Toronto Star. He sums up Transformers: Age of Extinction thusly: "It's long, it's loud, and it's really stupid." He even feels the need to repeat that sentence twice. He then adds it's not even "mildly tolerable as time-wasting trash."