rawstory | In a classic case of “unintended consequences,” the recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana may have opened the door for the establishment of the First Church of Cannabis in the Hoosier State.
While Governor Mike Pence (R) was holding a signing ceremony for the
bill allowing businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on
religious grounds or values, paperwork for the First Church of Cannabis
Inc. was being filed with the Secretary of State’s office, reports RTV6.
Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church’s registration has been approved,
writing, “Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana –
“Congratulations your registration has been approved!” Now we begin to
accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.”
Levin is currently seeking $4.20 donations towards his non-profit church.
According to Indiana attorney and political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz,
Indiana legislators, in their haste to protect the religious values and
practices of their constituents, may have unwittingly put the state in
an awkward position with those who profess to smoke pot as a religious
sacrament.
Shabazz pointed out that it is still illegal to smoke pot in Indiana,
but wrote, “I would argue that under RFRA, as long as you can show that
reefer is part of your religious practices, you got a pretty good shot
of getting off scot-free.”
theatlantic | There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is
called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack:
“Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law?
Nothing significant.” I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but
even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. “Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarzwrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That
becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes.
If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features
the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law
explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free
exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language,
and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in
fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A
person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is
likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may
assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a
judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute
explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise”
rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal
thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in
which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to
give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’
statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free
exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person,
rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this
matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious
freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a
New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In
that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio
that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars
discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual
orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred
the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply
“because the government is not a party.”
Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the
Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a
similar decision.
NYTimes |
The state laws were not used to protect minorities, these critics say,
but to allow some religious groups to undermine the rights of women,
gays and lesbians or other groups.
“The coalition broke apart over the civil rights issues,” said Eunice Rho, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The organization, which initially supported the measures, now opposes
them unless they include language ensuring that they will not be used to
permit discrimination or harm.
In
the 1990s, for example, in the kind of case that raised red flags for
civil rights advocates, landlords cited religious beliefs, sometimes
with success in court, after refusing to rent to unmarried heterosexual
couples.
The
clash of values erupted again after Indiana adopted its own version of a
“religious freedom” act last week. Arkansas is expected to approve a
similar law this week.
The
furor has put Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, who is considered a possible
Republican presidential candidate, under national scrutiny. On Monday,
Republican legislators in Indiana said they were searching with the
governor for a possible amendment to the law to “clarify” that it does
not permit discrimination against gays and lesbians.
“It
is not the intent of the law to discriminate against anyone, and it
will not be allowed to discriminate against anyone,” David. C. Long,
president pro tem of the State Senate, said on Monday at a news
conference with Brian C. Bosma, speaker of the State House of
Representatives.
idibon | In any community there’s bound to be friction, but some… take it further than others. Reddit is
a platform for thousands of online communities (known as “subreddits”),
where community members can submit content, and upvote, downvote, or
comment on content that others have submitted. Topics of discussion on
Reddit run the gamut of human interest, but one of Reddit’s favorite
topics to talk about is, unsurprisingly, Reddit itself.
A recent post on
AskReddit posing the question – “What popular subreddit has a really
toxic community?” – surged to the top of the front page with 4,000
upvotes and over 10,000 comments as Redditors voiced their opinions on
which Reddit communities they found to be the most abhorrent (the “/r/”
prefix denotes a subreddit):
As I sifted through the thread, my data geek sensibilities tingled as
I wondered “Why must we rely upon opinion for such a question?
Shouldn’t there be an objective way to measure toxicity?”
With this in mind, I set out to scientifically measure toxicity and
supportiveness in Reddit comments and communities. I then compared
Reddit’s own evaluation of its subreddits to see where they were right,
where they were wrong, and what they may have missed. While this post is
specific to Reddit, our methodology here could be applied to offer an
objective score of community health for any data set featuring user
comments.
Defining Toxicity and Supportiveness
So what is Toxicity? Before we could do any analysis around which
subreddits were the most Toxic, we needed to define what we would be
measuring. At a high level, Toxic comments are ones that would make
someone who disagrees with the viewpoint of the commenter feel
uncomfortable and less likely to want to participate in that Reddit
community. To be more specific, we defined a comment as Toxic if it met
either of the following criteria:
Ad hominem attack: a comment that directly attacks another Redditor (e.g. “your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries”)
or otherwise shows contempt/disagrees in a completely non-constructive
manner (e.g. “GASP are they trying CENSOR your FREE SPEECH??? I weep for
you /s”)
Overt bigotry: the use of bigoted
(racist/sexist/homophobic etc.) language, whether targeting any
particular individual or more generally, which would make members of the
referenced group feel highly uncomfortable
However, the problem with only measuring Toxic comments is it biases
against subreddits that simply tend to be more polarizing and evoke more
emotional responses generally. In order to account for this, we also
measured Supportiveness in comments – defined as language that is
directly addressing another Redditor in a supportive (e.g. “We’re
rooting for you!”) or appreciative (e.g. “Thanks for the awesome post!”)
manner.
By measuring both Toxicity and Supportiveness we are able to get a
holistic view of community health that can be used to more fairly
compare and contrast subreddit communities.
reason | So remember, kids, you don't go to college to learn new things and
feed your head. You go to college to be subjected to an anonymous system
of collecting information about the bad thoughts you have and the
misstatements you make, some of which you might not even have intended
to be hurtful.
But rest easy, because if you are in fact accused of microaggressing, your accuser "would likely
have to reveal their identity" if any charges are pressed (emphasis
added). Because we know how well colleges do at handling legal-style
proceedings.
The system would allow individuals reporting microaggressions to
remain anonymous. However, junior Kyle James, vice president of
communications and co-sponsor of the bill, said those reporting a
microaggression would likely have to reveal their identity if they
wanted to pursue any legal action.
James said in addition to a space to report the particular incident,
the online system would track the demographics of those reporting
microaggressions as well as those accused of committing them.
I would like to believe that awfulness of imposing such a system is
self-evident, especially at a university, which is supposed to be about
the free and open exchange of ideas and the production of knowledge (at
least in the few spare moments between football games and re-education
seminars). In an astonishingly short half-century, we have cycled from a
demand for "free speech" on college campuses to the condemnation of
speech via anonymous, online, geo-tagged systems that may or may not
accord the accused any ability to speak up in their own defense.
Unless your goal is to chill or control speech and thought, this sort
of program is a complete anathema to everything that higher education
is supposed to promote and cherish. But there you are, another year older and deeper in debt. Fist tap Big Don.
dailysignal | As Ryan T. Anderson and I explained Thursday,
the Indiana law is good policy. Like the federal Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, Indiana’s new law prohibits substantial government
burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show a
compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and does so through
the least restrictive means.
These protections for religious freedom provide a commonsense way to
balance the fundamental right to religious liberty with compelling
government interests.
gawker |Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S.
diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family
confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a
former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from
Blumenthal's account.
The emails, which were
posted on the internet in 2013,
also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed
contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put
operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya's
civil war raged in 2011.
Blumenthal's emails to Clinton, which were directed to her private
email account, include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on
the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as
events in other nations. They came to light after a hacker broke into
Blumenthal's account and have taken on new significance in light of the
disclosure that she conducted State Department and personal business
exclusively over an email server that she controlled and kept secret
from State Department officials and which only recently was discovered
by congressional investigators.
The contents of that account are now being sought by a congressional
inquiry into the Benghazi attacks. Clinton has handed over more than
30,000 pages of her emails to the State Department, after unilaterally
deciding which ones involved government business; the State Department
has so far handed almost 900 pages of those over to the committee. A
Clinton spokesman told Gawker and ProPublica (which are collaborating on
this story) that she has turned over all the emails Blumenthal sent to
Hillary.
The dispatches from Blumenthal to Clinton's private email address were
posted online after Blumenthal's account was hacked in 2013 by Romanian hacker Marcel-Lehel Lazar, who went by the name Guccifer.
Lazar also broke into accounts belonging to George W. Bush's sister,
Colin Powell, and others. He's now serving a seven-year sentence in his
home country and was charged in a U.S. indictment last year.
The contents of the memos, which
have recently become the subject of speculation
in the right-wing media, raise new questions about how Clinton used her
private email account and whether she tapped into an undisclosed back
channel for information on Libya's crisis and other foreign policy
matters.
firstlook | One of the earliest and most intense grievances of civil libertarians during the Bush presidency was
its radical abuse of the “state secrets privilege.” That doctrine began
as a narrowly crafted evidentiary rule whereby parties to litigation
would be barred from using specific documents that could reveal
sensitive national security secrets. But it morphed into the legal
equivalent of a nuclear bomb whereby the U.S. government could literally
demand not that specific documents be excluded but that U.S. courts
dismiss entire lawsuits before they began — even when those lawsuits
alleged criminal behavior by top U.S. officials — on the ground that the
subject matter of the lawsuit was too sensitive to be safely
adjudicated.
The Bush Justice Department used this weapon to prevent its torture,
detention, rendition and surveillance victims — even those everyone
acknowledged were completely innocent — from having a day in court. They
would simply say that the treatment of the plaintiffs was classified,
and that disclosure would risk harm to national security, and
subservient U.S. federal judges (an almost redundant term) would
dutifully dismiss the lawsuits before they even began. It literally
removed high U.S. government officials from the rule of law: if you
commit crimes or brutally abuse people, you will be immunized from legal
accountability if you did it in a classified setting.
When Obama was in the Senate and then running for President in 2007,
he was highly critical of the Bush use of the “state secrets privilege”
to get rid of troublesome lawsuits. His official campaign website cited Bush’s abuse of the privilege as a hallmark of excessive secrecy.
But like so many of his purported views, this concern about the use of the “state secrets privilege” was abandoned almost immediately upon his inauguration. His DOJ invoked the privilege
to demand victims of Bush programs of torture, rendition, detention,
and surveillance be denied any opportunity to be heard in court even
when the U.S. government itself acknowledged they were innocent. Obama
lawyers even invoked secrecy to
argue that a lawsuit challenging the legality of their own targeted
assassination program against a U.S. citizen could not be heard in
court. As an early headline in the Obama-supporting TPM site recognized:
“Expert Consensus: Obama Mimics Bush On State Secrets. And it worked in virtually every case.
“I’m trying to think of a place that’s duller,” Australian writer
Charles James told Fortune in 1999. “Maybe a British village in
midwinter.”
In one way, the brothers adhere to Islamic law: As prescribed, each
has several wives and families. But everything else they do is in
defiance of the Koran and the law they’ve just imposed.
“It’s a radical double standard,” says Jillian Lauren, who wrote
about her life as a member of Jefri’s harem in her memoir, “Some Girls.”
“They have more money than anyone else. I know that they both have been
married and divorced multiple times. It’s really hypocritical.”
“With their money, they could have cured diseases,” an adviser to Jefri
told Fortune. “But they have little interest in the rest of humanity.”
Another described Jefri and his brother as incredibly dim. “They
don’t have a lot of thoughts,” he said. “If you were a fly on the wall
and heard their conversations, they’d take you to Bellevue.”
A third brother, Mohamed, was reported to loathe his brothers’
wantonness and profligacy. But when the Sultan tasked him with
rebuilding the economy that he and Jefri had so badly damaged, he took
more than $2 billion for himself and was promptly fired.
radiolab | At the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City, Kipchoge Keino overcame a
gall bladder infection to win gold in the 1500 meter race. Since then,
one particular group of Kenyans - the Kalenjin - has produced an
astonishing number of great long-distance runners. Gregory Warner
- NPR's East Africa correspondent - takes Jad and Robert down a rabbit
hole of theories about what exactly is going on in Kalenjin country.
David Epstein and John Manners help
Greg untangle a web of potential factors - from something in the
cornmeal to simple economics. And, after talking to a young Kalenjin
runner named Elly Kipgogei, Greg
discovers a somewhat disturbing explanation for Kalenjin running
prowess that actually makes him want to get on the treadmill and push
himself just a little harder.
newyorker | In the summer of 2010, New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie travelled by helicopter to Atlantic City for
what the local media described as a historic press conference. The news
out of the city had been growing steadily worse, and by the time of
Christie’s appearance it was clear that, nearly four decades after it
had legalized gambling in an attempt to avoid economic ruin, Atlantic
City was back where it had started. Standing in front of Boardwalk Hall,
next to the mayor and members of the city council, Christie declared,
“Atlantic City is dying.” The city, once known as the World’s
Playground, had become unclean and unsafe. The number of visitors had
fallen, and casino revenues were plummeting. Christie then announced a
plan to return Atlantic City to its rightful place as the East Coast’s
premier entertainment destination. There would be a sparkling new
tourist district, with more conventions, restaurants, retail outlets,
and non-gambling attractions. Also in development were bold new
marketing plans and nonstop air routes to deliver fresh gamblers.
Atlantic City, the Governor promised, would become “Las Vegas East.”
Four
years later, Christie’s plan has failed. Four of Atlantic City’s twelve
casinos have gone out of business this year, including Revel,
an estimated $2.3-billion jewel that opened just two years ago;
another, the Trump Taj Mahal, has announced that it could close within
weeks. An estimated eight thousand jobs have already been lost, and
thousands more seem likely to follow. Since Christie’s 2010 press
conference, the assessed value of all the property in the city has
declined by nearly half.
While it would be easy
to conclude that Atlantic City’s demise is the predictable result of
decades of well-documented greed, corruption, and incompetent
leadership, the city is in fact one of the first casualties of a
nationwide casino arms race. Eager for new jobs and new revenues that
don’t require raising taxes, states from coast to coast have turned to
gambling: in 1978, only Nevada and New Jersey had commercial casinos;
today, twenty-four states do. Atlantic City once had the densely
populated Northeast all to itself, but now nearly every state in the
region is home to casinos. And with both New York and Massachusetts
poised to open massive new gambling resorts, the competition for the
fixed number of gamblers there will only get tougher. “It’s a war,”
Father Richard McGowan, a professor of management at Boston College who
studies the gambling industry, said. “It’s remarkable to me how the
states are fighting each other for gambling revenue.”
sfist | At a news conference today, Public Defender Jeff Adachi alleged that San Francisco sheriff's deputies have been forcing county jail inmates to fight one another while the duties gamble on the outcomes of the gladiatorial-style matches.
The Chronicle reports that revelations of the illegal behavior were going to wait until the informing inmates were out of jail, but according to Adachi, another fight was planned for next week and they chose to act now.
According to the Examiner, four deputies at one SoMa jail have been threatening violence to inmates if they refuse to fight each other. Three inmates represented by the public defender’s office spoke up, saying that they were scared for their lives and threatened with handcuffs, pepper spray, and beatings for non-participation.
One deputy reportedly selected an overweight inmate to be his "prize fighter," forcing him to work out in front of his fellows who would be punished if he didn't complete tasks.
According to Adachi, the ringleader was Deputy Scott Neu, accused in 2006 of forcing inmates to engage in sexual acts with him in a case settled out of court. The Public Defender’s Office hired a private investigator to corroborate the claims.
Nature Scientific Reports | The nanoarchitecture and micromachinery of a cell can be leveraged to fabricate sophisticated cell-driven devices. This requires a coherent strategy to derive cell's mechanistic abilities, microconstruct, and chemical-texture towards such microtechnologies. For example, a microorganism's hydrophobic membrane encapsulating hygroscopic constituents allows it to sustainably withhold a high aquatic pressure. Further, it provides a rich surface chemistry available for nano-interfacing and a strong mechanical response to humidity. Here we demonstrate a route to incorporate a complex cellular structure into microelectromechanics by interfacing compatible graphene quantum dots (GQDs) with a highly responsive single spore microstructure. A sensitive and reproducible electron-tunneling width modulation of 1.63 nm within a network of GQDs chemically-secured on a spore was achieved via sporal hydraulics with a driving force of 299.75 Torrs (21.7% water at GQD junctions). The electron-transport activation energy and the Coulomb blockade threshold for the GQD network were 35 meV and 31 meV, respectively; while the inter-GQD capacitance increased by 1.12 folds at maximum hydraulic force. This is the first example of nano/bio interfacing with spores and will lead to the evolution of next-generation bio-derived microarchitectures, probes for cellular/biochemical processes, biomicrorobotic-mechanisms, and membranes for micromechanical actuation.
cluborlov | Once upon a time—and a fairly long time it was—most of the thickly
settled parts of the world had something called feudalism. It was a way
of organizing society hierarchically. Typically, at the very top there
was a sovereign (king, prince, emperor, pharaoh, along with some high
priests). Below the sovereign were several ranks of noblemen, with
hereditary titles. Below the noblemen were commoners, who likewise
inherited their stations in life, be it by being bound to a piece of
land upon which they toiled, or by being granted the right to engage in a
certain type of production or trade, in case of craftsmen and
merchants. Everybody was locked into position through permanent
relationships of allegiance, tribute and customary duties: tribute and
customary duties flowed up through the ranks, while favors, privileges
and protection flowed down.
It was a remarkably resilient, self-perpetuating
system, based largely on the use of land and other renewable resources,
all ultimately powered by sunlight. Wealth was primarily derived from
land and the various uses of land. Here is a simplified org chart
showing the pecking order of a medieval society.
Feudalism was essentially a steady-state system. Population pressures
were relieved primarily through emigration, war, pestilence and, failing
all of the above, periodic famine. Wars of conquest sometimes opened up
temporary new venues for economic growth, but since land and sunlight
are finite, this amounted to a zero-sum game.
But all of that changed when feudalism was replaced with capitalism.
What made the change possible was the exploitation of nonrenewable
resources, the most important of which was energy from burning
fossilized hydrocarbons: first peat and coal, then oil and natural gas.
Suddenly, productive capacity was decoupled from the availability of
land and sunlight, and could be ramped up almost, but not quite, ad
infinitum, simply by burning more hydrocarbons. Energy use, industry and
population all started going up exponentially. A new system of economic
relations was brought into being, based on money that could be
generated at will, in the form of debt, which could be repaid with
interest using the products of ever-increasing future production.
Compared with the previous, steady-state system, the change amounted to a
new assumption: that the future will always be bigger and richer—rich
enough to afford to pay back both principal and interest.
nbcnews | The co-pilot of the crashed
Germanwings plane appears to have "intentionally" brought the plane down
while his captain was locked out of the cockpit and banging to be let
back in, prosecutors said Thursday.
German Chancellor Angela
Merkel said the revelations added a "new, simply incomprehensible
dimension" to the tragedy, adding that "something like this goes beyond
anything we can imagine."
First Officer Andreas
Lubitz, 27, was alone at the controls of the Airbus A320 as it began its
rapid descent, Marseille Prosecutor Brice Robin told a news conference.
Passengers' cries were
heard on the plane's cockpit voice recorder in the moments just before
the plane slammed into the French Alps, Brice said.
"Banging" sounds also
were audible, he said, suggesting the captain was trying to force his
way back into the cockpit. However, the reinforced cockpit door was
locked from the inside and could not be overridden, even with a coded
entry panel.
"If he had been able to open this door, the captain would have done it," Brice said.
Lubitz, a German
national from the town of Montabaur, "didn't say a word" during the
descent, according to Brice, who said no distress signal or radio call
was made.
"There was no reason to
put the plane into a descent, nor to not respond to… air traffic
controllers," he said. "Was it suicide? I'm not using the word, I don't
know. Given the information I have at this time … I can tell you that he
deliberately made possible the loss of altitude of the aircraft."
commondreams | The bold headline of a recent Los Angeles Times editorial
by the hydrologist Jay Famiglietti starkly warned: “California has
about one year of water left. Will you ration now?” The write-up quickly
made the social media rounds, prompting both panic and the usual blame
game: It’s because of the meat eaters or the vegan almond-milk drinkers or the bottled-water guzzlers or the Southern California lawn soakers.
California’s water loss
has been terrifying. But people everywhere should be scared, not just
Californians, because this story goes far beyond state lines. It is a
story of global climate change and industrial agriculture. It is also a
saga that began many decades ago—with the early water wars of the 1930s
immortalized in the 1974 Roman Polanski film “Chinatown.”
When my family first moved to the Los Angeles area, we spent years
adjusting our lifestyle to be more in line with our values. Ten years
ago, we stopped watering our lawn and eventually replaced the lawn with
plants that were drought-tolerant or native to California. Three years
ago, we installed solar panels on our roofs. Last year, we diverted our
laundry runoff to our vegetable garden and fruit trees through a
graywater system. We have replaced all our toilets with dual-flush
systems to take advantage of local rebates, and we practice responsible flushing.
We almost never wash our cars, and we shower less often in the winter.
We are investigating rainwater barrels in our latest effort to be
responsible stewards of our water. Yet none of our efforts to be an
example to others have done anything other than make us feel morally
self-righteous enough to wag our fingers at water wasters.
California’s water resources are being mismanaged, according to Janet
Redman, director of the Climate Policy Program at the Institute for
Policy Studies, a progressive think tank. “The management of water from
California’s historic aquifer and snow and rivers and lakes doesn’t
match the use right now,” Redman told me in an interview on my show, “Uprising.” It’s a big understatement.
Even though Gov. Jerry Brown just imposed a series of mandatory water-conservation measures
in response to the emergency, most of those measures are aimed at
individual users and restaurants. While it is crucial for residents to
stop wasting water on the utterly useless tasks of car washing and lawn
watering, “residential use in California is about 4 percent,” Redman
told me. “Eighty percent is for agriculture.”
The truth is that California’s Central Valley, which is where the
vast majority of the state’s farming businesses are located, is a
desert. That desert is irrigated with enough precious water to
artificially sustain the growing of one-third of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, a $40 billion industry.
LATimes | Right now the state has only about one year of water supply left in its
reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly
disappearing. California has no contingency plan for a persistent
drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except,
apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain.
In short, we have no paddle to navigate this crisis.
Several
steps need be taken right now. First, immediate mandatory water
rationing should be authorized across all of the state's water sectors,
from domestic and municipal through agricultural and industrial. The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is already
considering water rationing by the summer unless conditions improve.
There is no need for the rest of the state to hesitate. The public is
ready. A recent Field Poll showed that 94% of Californians surveyed
believe that the drought is serious, and that one-third support
mandatory rationing.
Second, the implementation of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act of 2014 should be accelerated. The law
requires the formation of numerous, regional groundwater sustainability
agencies by 2017. Then each agency must adopt a plan by 2022 and
“achieve sustainability” 20 years after that. At that pace, it will be
nearly 30 years before we even know what is working. By then, there may
be no groundwater left to sustain.
Third, the state needs a task force of thought leaders that starts,
right now, brainstorming to lay the groundwork for long-term water
management strategies. Although several state task forces have been
formed in response to the drought, none is focused on solving the
long-term needs of a drought-prone, perennially water-stressed
California.
Our state's water management is complex, but the
technology and expertise exist to handle this harrowing future. It will
require major changes in policy and infrastructure that could take
decades to identify and act upon. Today, not tomorrow, is the time to
begin.
Finally,
the public must take ownership of this issue. This crisis belongs to
all of us — not just to a handful of decision-makers. Water is our most
important, commonly owned resource, but the public remains detached from
discussions and decisions.
shtf | The water crisis in California is reaching epic proportions.
And it’s going to cost everyone, big time.
After a sustained drought, NASA has reported that the state has less than one year of water reserves remaining, with no back up plan if things go wrong.
Now, there is so much demand for water in Southern Californian
cities, that many farmers are opting to sell their water rights to urban
dwellers – not just at a premium, but at an unbelievable and
unprecedented rate.
CBS News
profiled some rice farmers with historic rights to the Yuba River who
are being offered so much for water, they have decided to forego
planting their crops altogether and sell the new “cash crop” – liquid
gold. Fist tap Big Don.
RawStory | Magic mushrooms (psilocbye cubensis) can provoke hallucinations, spiritual insights, and serious hilarity, but just what do they do to your brain?
They’re illegal under federal law–a Schedule I controlled substance, like heroin, LSD, and marijuana–but scientists say they can have thereapeutic uses for people suffering from disorders such as PTSD and depression. And a widely-cited 2010 British study found magic mushrooms to be the least dangerous of any of the 20 drugs evaluated, both for users and for society at large.
Those science sleuths at ASAPScience have a nifty little three-minute animated video that explains just what psilocybin, the active ingredient in ‘shrooms, does in and to your brain as your mind melts. The science is firm and the viewpoint is balanced–they don’t shy away from the possibility of unhappy experiences–but in the end they come out for loosening up the laws in light of what we know now.
Oilprice.com | Oil companies continue to get burned by low oil prices, but the pain is bleeding over into the financial industry. Major banks are suffering huge losses from both directly backing some struggling oil companies, but also from buying high-yield debt that is now going sour.
The Wall Street Journal reported that tens of millions of dollars have gone up in smoke on loans made to the energy industry by Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and UBS. Loans issued to oil and gas companies have looked increasingly unappetizing, making it difficult for the banks to sell them on the market.
To make matters worse, much of the credit issued by the big banks have been tied to oil field services firms, rather than drillers themselves – companies that provide equipment, housing, well completions, trucks, and much more. These companies sprung up during the boom, but they are the first to feel the pain when drilling activity cuts back. With those firms running out of cash to pay back lenders, Wall Street is having a lot of trouble getting rid of its pile of bad loans.
Robert Cohen, a loan-portfolio manager at DoubleLine Capital, told the Wall Street Journal that he declined to purchase energy loans from Citibank. “We’ve been pretty shy about dipping back into the energy names,” he said. “We’re taking a wait-and-see attitude.”
But some big investors jumped back into the high-yield debt markets in February as it appeared that oil prices stabilized and were even rebounding. However, since March 4 when oil prices began to fall again, an estimated $7 billion in high-yield debt from distressed energy companies was wiped out, according to Bloomberg.
The high-yield debt market is being overrun by the energy industry. High-yield energy debt has swelled from just $65.6 billion in 2007 up to $201 billion today. That is a result of shaky drillers turning to debt markets more and more to stay afloat, as well as once-stable companies getting downgraded into junk territory. Yields on junk energy debt have hit 7.44 percent over government bonds, more than double the rate from June 2014.
NYTimes | The president’s harsh words
have been deemed by some to be patronizing and disrespectful not only
to Mr. Netanyahu but also to the voters who rewarded his uncompromising
stances with a resounding mandate for a fourth term.
Several
Israeli analysts said the administration’s criticism of Mr. Netanyahu
seemed like a pretext for a longstanding plan to change the United
States’ policy of protecting Israel
in international forums, which the administration has said it will
reassess. Others suspect a ploy to undermine Israel’s lobbying efforts
against the American negotiations for a nuclear accord with Iran.
The rift widened further on Tuesday with a Wall Street Journal report
in which administration officials accused Israeli officials of spying
on the closed-door negotiations with Iran and sharing secret details
about them with Congress and journalists. Three top Israeli ministers
vehemently denied the report. Several congressional Republicans said
they had received no such information, and those in Mr. Netanyahu’s
close circle said it seemed like more poisoning of dirty waters.
“Sometimes
you have these unfortunate patterns that occur when you have tensions
in the relationship,” said Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the
United Nations. “Stories based on anonymous sources pop up, and their
purpose seems to be to undermine the alliance between the two
countries.”
In contrast with the White House, leading Israeli voices seem to have accepted Mr. Netanyahu’s post-election clarification that current circumstances make it impossible to imagine meeting his longstanding conditions for supporting a Palestinian state. While Israel’s Arab politicians rejected Mr. Netanyahu’s apology
on Monday for an election-day video in which he warned about Arab
citizens’ descending in “droves” to the polls, several of his most
virulent Jewish critics praised it.
sputniknews | Eagle Resolve will involve tactical exercises from the US Army,
Marines, and various other military branches to test readiness in air
defense, border security, counterterrorism, as well as "consequence
management." These include amphibious landing exercises and ship-based
search and seizure operations.
Officials insist that the exercise has been in the planning stages
for the last 14 months, and has nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear
negotiations.
"The exercise is not intended as a signal to Iran," a CENTCOM
official said, according to the Free Beacon. "If there’s any message
at all, it’s that all participants have a common interest in regional
security."
"It’s important to point out that this is a recurring exercise,
with planning for this year’s exercise beginning over a year ago," the
official added. "The focus of the exercise is on bolstering capabilities
useful in a wide range of scenarios to help preserve and bolster
regional security, with simulated portions of the exercise based on a
fictional adversary."
Still, it’s hard to ignore which nation that “fictional adversary”
may be in reference to. On Saturday, former CIA Director General David
Petraeus called Iran the greatest long-term threat to stability in the
region.
"I
would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and
the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is
Shiite militias, many backed by – and some guided by – Iran," he told
the Washington Post.
It’s a view echoed by many US lawmakers and military officials. Given
that the deadline for a framework deal on the controversial nuclear
negotiations is fast approaching, it’s hard to ignore the potential
message of a large-scale military exercise.
NYTimes | The
safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might
find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The
room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh,
calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as
well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma
Hall, a junior, rape survivor and “sexual assault peer educator” who
helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate, estimates
that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the
lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to
the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that
really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.
Safe
spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent
among college students, that their schools should keep them from being
“bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe
space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a
notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert
students to the presence of potentially disturbing material.
Some
people trace safe spaces back to the feminist consciousness-raising
groups of the 1960s and 1970s, others to the gay and lesbian movement of
the early 1990s. In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of
like-minded people who agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or
what they term microaggressions — subtle displays of racial or sexual
bias — so that everyone can relax enough to explore the nuances of, say,
a fluid gender identity. As long as all parties consent to such
restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint seem like a
perfectly fine idea.
But
the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of
controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate
some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that
they should be made safer.
This logic clearly informed a campaign undertaken this fall by a Columbia University
student group called Everyone Allied Against Homophobia that consisted
of slipping a flier under the door of every dorm room on campus. The
headline of the flier stated, “I want this space to be a safer space.”
The text below instructed students to tape the fliers to their windows.
The group’s vice president then had the flier published in the Columbia
Daily Spectator, the student newspaper, along with an editorial
asserting that “making spaces safer is about learning how to be kind to
each other.”
A
junior named Adam Shapiro decided he didn’t want his room to be a safer
space. He printed up his own flier calling it a dangerous space and had
that, too, published in the Columbia Daily Spectator. “Kindness alone
won’t allow us to gain more insight into truth,” he wrote. In an
interview, Mr. Shapiro said, “If the point of a safe space is therapy
for people who feel victimized by traumatization, that sounds like a
great mission.” But a safe-space mentality has begun infiltrating
classrooms, he said, making both professors and students loath to say
anything that might hurt someone’s feelings. “I don’t see how you can
have a therapeutic space that’s also an intellectual space,” he said.
consortiumnews | But don’t think that this unlocking of the U.S. taxpayers’ wallets is
just about this one couple. There will be plenty of money to be made by
other neocon think-tankers all around Washington, including Frederick
Kagan, who works for the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, and
his wife, Kimberly, who runs her own think tank, the Institute for the
Study of War [ISW].
According to ISW’s annual reports, its original supporters were mostly
right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host
of national security contractors, including major ones like General
Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such
as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police,
and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the
CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to U.S.
military intelligence in Afghanistan.
Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the
Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely
cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded U.S. forces in
those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting
extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com’s
“Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War.”]
In other words, the Family Kagan has almost a self-perpetuating,
circular business model – working the inside-corridors of government
power to stimulate wars while simultaneously influencing the public
debate through think-tank reports and op-ed columns in favor of more
military spending – and then collecting grants and other funding from
thankful military contractors.
To be fair, the Nuland-Kagan mom-and-pop shop is really only a
microcosm of how the Military-Industrial Complex has worked for
decades: think-tank analysts generate the reasons for military
spending, the government bureaucrats implement the necessary war
policies, and the military contractors make lots of money before
kicking back some to the think tanks — so the bloody but profitable
cycle can spin again.
The only thing that makes the Nuland-Kagan operation special perhaps is that the whole process is all in the family.
fp | The nuclear mess in Parks could hold clues to yet another mystery in
this Pennsylvania community, one that has bedeviled nuclear analysts for
decades. Beginning in the early 1960s, investigators from the Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC), the agency that regulated U.S. nuclear
facilities at the time, began to question how large amounts of highly
enriched, weapons-grade uranium had gone missing from NUMEC. Any nuclear
site had a certain amount of loss, from seepage into walls and floors,
for instance. In fact, between 1952 and 1968, lax standards at 20 of the
country’s commercial nuclear sites resulted in an apparent loss of 995
kilograms (2,194 pounds) of uranium-235. But investigators found that at
NUMEC, hundreds of pounds went missing, more than at any other plant.
NUMEC’s founder, Zalman Shapiro, an accomplished American
chemist, addressed the concern in 1978, telling Arizona Congressman
Morris Udall that the uranium simply escaped through the facility’s air
ducts, cement, and wastewater. Others, such as the late Glenn Seaborg,
the AEC’s chairman in the 1960s—who had previously helped discover
plutonium and made key contributions to the Manhattan Project—have
suggested that the sloppy accounting and government regulations of the
mid-20th century meant that keeping track of losses in America’s newborn
nuclear industry was well near impossible. Today, some people in Apollo
think that at least a portion of the uranium might be buried in Parks,
contaminating the earth and, ultimately, human beings.
But a number of nuclear experts and intelligence officials propose
another theory straight out of an espionage thriller: that the uranium
was diverted—stolen by spies working for the Mossad, Israel’s
intelligence agency. In the 1960s, to secure nuclear technology and
materials, Israel mounted covert operations around the world, including
at least one alleged open-ocean transfer of hundreds of pounds of
uranium. Some experts have also raised questions about Shapiro himself.
He had contacts deep within Israel’s defense and intelligence
establishments when he ran NUMEC; several of them even turned up at his
facility over time and concealed their professional identities while
there.
Fifty years after investigations began—they have involved, at
various times, the AEC and its successors, Congress, the FBI, the CIA,
and other government agencies—NUMEC remains one of the most confounding
puzzles of the nuclear era. “It is one of the most interesting and
important Cold War mysteries out there,” said Steven Aftergood, who
directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American
Scientists. “Mainly as a story of clandestine nuclear proliferation,
intelligence, security bungling, and the limits of intelligence.” The
questions about Shapiro, meanwhile, linger: Is he a great American
innovator, a traitor, or both? (Shapiro, now 94, has never been charged
with a crime or convicted of one, and he has steadfastly proclaimed his
innocence.)
Answers could emerge, once and for all, during the upcoming
cleanup in Parks. Residents of this corner of Armstrong County,
Pennsylvania, could finally be told that the missing uranium has been
beneath and around them all along—that large amounts of dangerous and
volatile radioactive waste have been festering in the soil for more than
half a century. Or they could learn that the material was indeed at the
center of international intrigue. Either way, the small town of Apollo
may long for boring anonymity.
theatlantic | Here's something else Obama said in that interview last year: "I
have not yet heard ... a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a
democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence
of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody
has presented me a credible scenario."
He went on, "The only thing that I’ve heard is,
'We’ll just keep on doing what we’re doing, and deal with problems as
they arise. And we'll build settlements where we can. And where there
are problems in the West Bank, we will deal with them forcefully. We’ll
cooperate or co-opt the Palestinian Authority.' And yet, at no point do
you ever see an actual resolution to the problem. ... And my assessment,
which is shared by a number of Israeli observers, I think, is there
comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start
having to make very difficult choices."
Over the past couple of days I've had several conversations with
American Jewish leaders—those who are located in the broad middle,
between the J Street/Sheldon Adelson ends of the spectrum—and they are
uniformly, and deeply, anxious. The message was the same: Netanyahu's
next, even-more-right-wing-than-usual government, they fear, will only
take steps to further Israel's isolation, from America and from the
world, and the Obama administration, which feels such deep, emotional
anger toward Israel, will only make the situation worse, by
misunderstanding, and downplaying, Israel's anxieties. (Sad but true:
Some Israelis voted for Netanyahu because they're frightened of
Obama.)
Something unnatural is happening in
Portland, and Police Union President Daryl Turner isn't going to put up
with it. The proper order of things is upended. Black is white and white
is black, cats and dogs cohabit. Madness! A judge has disbelieved a cop.
Last week Circuit Judge Diana Stuart acquitted teenager Thai Gurule on juvenile charges of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and attempted assault on a cop. She acquitted him even though the cops said he did it. Is Judge Stuart some sort of pro-criminal agitator? Apparently. In an extensive written order
she weighed the testimony of sworn police officers against irrelevant
trifles like actual videorecordings of their encounter with Gurule. Even
though the cops swore that Gurule threw punches at them, Judge Stuart
disbelieved them simply because she could not see any punches on the
cell phone videos. Is she some sort of video-fisticuffs expert? Worse
than that, she specifically stated that she didn't find some of their
testimony credible.
As if they weren't cops.
There's a final aspect of this case that warrants a mention. In the
video of this 16-year-old being stopped illegally, his older brother,
who knew he was doing nothing wrong, can be heard shouting at police
that the youngster played football for his high school, didn't drink,
and didn't do marijuana. He was pleading with them and increasingly
distraught as they punched the kid, threw him to the ground, and Tased
him. What he's doing off camera isn't evident in the videos, though it
is apparent that an increasingly hostile crowd was gathering. The end of
the Oregonian story notes,
"Gurule's brother went to trial in adult court in January. Judge Cheryl
Albrecht found him guilty of misdemeanor interfering with a police
officer and resisting arrest, but acquitted him of disorderly conduct.
Albrecht sentenced him to 64 hours of community service and two years of
probation." I don't know if the brother got a bogus conviction or if he
really did criminally interfere with police by doing something stupid
off camera.
Either way, he is a young black man who wouldn't have this criminal
conviction, two years probation, and 64 hours of community service but
for the fact that Portland police illegally stopped his brother,
needlessly escalated the encounter, and meted out what has now been
judged excessive force in the course of taking him into custody.
adn | Anchorage police served a search warrant on the
Alaska Cannabis Club's downtown clubhouse on Friday afternoon, taking
boxes of evidence from the residence as club owner Charlo Greene
watched.
Anchorage Police Department spokesperson Jennifer Castro
told reporters on scene later Friday afternoon that police had received
reports of illegal marijuana sales occurring at the clubhouse. No
charges had been filed Friday, Castro said.
Police arrived about 1 p.m., Greene said. Greene, whose legal name is Charlene Egbe, is a former television news reporter who achieved national notoriety in September when she quit on-air after announcing she was the owner of the club.
A copy of the search warrant provided by Greene
specified police were searching for evidence of "misconduct involving a
controlled substance."
According to Greene, there were nine
marijuana plants in one duplex and 14 in another. Five medical-marijuana
cardholders live at the residence, Greene said. She said 10 to 12
medical marijuana cardholders were in the residence when the search
warrant was served.
"I'm not surprised but I am disappointed," Greene said of the raid.
Two
marked police cars were outside the residence on Friday afternoon, with
a few more arriving as the search wore on. Greene said about seven
officers were boxing up marijuana plants, computers, papers and other
materials in the clubhouse. Greene said she was free to go but chose to
wait while police took evidence from the home.
An officer on scene confirmed no arrests were being made Friday afternoon.
At 3:10
p.m., police began to load evidence in paper bags and cardboard
boxes into a white van from the back door of the clubhouse. At
about 3:15 p.m., a red pickup and black Jeep were towed away from the
house.
Greene and boyfriend, Peter LoMonaco, watched as the vehicles were towed away.
Greene said the club would “open tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. and give free weed to all our members who come through.”
Greene said she would be hiring an attorney and was “gonna sue the s--- out of the city.”
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...