Quantcast
Channel: Pax on both houses
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live

Remains Of 8000 Year-Old Olive Oil Found In Lower Galilee

$
0
0

The discovery was made after Dr. Ianir Milevski and Nimrod Getzov directed an archeological salvage excavation at Ein Tzipori between 2011 and 2013.

The excavation led to research that indicated that olive oil was already being used in the country 8,000 years ago, during the 6th millennium BCE.

“Getzov and Milevski methodically sampled the pottery vessels found in the excavation to ascertain what was stored in them, and how they were used” by the area’s inhabitants, the statement said.

“Together with Dr. Dvory Namdar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Earth Sciences, they took small pieces of pottery and, utilizing chemical methods for extraction and identification, examined the organic remains that were absorbed in the sides of the vessel.”

These tests revealed that the pottery, dating to the Early Chalcolithic period, contained olive oil, the researchers concluded.

“A comparison of the results of the extraction from the archeological shards with those of modern, one-year-old oil showed a strong resemblance between the two, indicating a particularly high level of preservation of the ancient material, which had survived close to its original composition for almost 8,000 years,” the statement continued.

Of the 20 pottery vessels sampled, two were found to be particularly ancient, dating to approximately 5,800 BCE.

“In underwater archeological excavations directed by Dr. Ehud Galili opposite Kfar Samir, south of Haifa, remains of an olive oil industry from this period were previously discovered, whereas now at Tzipori, evidence has been found for first time of the use of olive oil,” the statement said.

“Together with the Kfar Samir discovery, this is the earliest evidence of olive oil production in the country, and possibly the entire Mediterranean basin.”

The researchers said the finding buttressed the possibility that olive oil was already a diet staple, and may have been used for lighting.

“Although it is impossible to say for sure, this might be an olive species that was domesticated and joined grain and legumes – the other kinds of field crops that we know were grown then,” they added.

“Those crops are known from at least 2,000 years prior to the settlement at Ein Tzipori. With the adoption of olive oil, the basic Mediterranean diet was complete.

From ancient times to the present, the Mediterranean economy has been based on high quality olive oil, grain and must, the three crops frequently mentioned in the Bible.”

The authority’s findings were initially published in an article appearing in the Israel Journal of Plant Sciences.


NPR: Arctic Is Heating Up Twice As Fast As The Rest Of The Planet

$
0
0
A lone polar bear poses on a block of arctic sea ice in Russia's Franz Josef Land.
A lone polar bear poses on a block of arctic sea ice in Russia's Franz Josef Land.
The latest word from scientists studying the Arctic is that the polar region is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. And researchers say the trend isn't letting up. That's the latest from the 2014 Arctic Report Card — a compilation of recent research from more than 60 scientists in 13 countries. The report was released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Jackie Richter-Menge, a polar scientist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who collaborated with NOAA on the analysis, says the findings demonstrate the "power of persistence" in the Arctic — "persistence in the warming air temperatures and the impact that is having on this icy environment."
In fact, she points out, "It's warming in the Arctic faster than anywhere on the globe."
That's largely because of arctic amplification. Here's how it works: Normally, snow and ice cool the surface by reflecting a lot of the sun's energy back up into the atmosphere. But warming air temperatures melt snow and ice. "And when they melt," says Richter-Menge, "they expose darker regions."
Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers float off the coast of Qaqortoq, Greenland in 2013.
Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers float off the coast of Qaqortoq, Greenland in 2013.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Darker regions, once covered in snow and ice, now absorb more heat, like a dark shirt does on a hot, sunny day. The same thing happens when sea ice melts — the exposed water is darker and warms up.
So what happens as a result of this amplification? Well, warmer water affects what lives in it. Apparently, plankton like the warmer conditions; they're thriving. Scientists say they don't know whether that's good or bad for the rest of us. But unlike plankton, polar bears don't like the warmer water and having less sea ice around.
"There's a strong connection between what's going on with the sea and polar bears," says Richter-Menge. In regions where the sea ice is holding steady, bears are doing OK, according to the report card. Where the ice is gone, bear numbers are down.
Then there's Greenland. The giant land mass is covered in ice that's a mile thick. Geophysicist Beata Csatho at the University of Buffalo has just completed the most comprehensive satellite survey of that ice cover.
"There are some places," she says, "where in the last 20 years the ice surface is just lowering, lowering, lowering very uniformly."
Csatho, whose research appears separately in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week, says she has noticed something else about Greenland's blanket of ice: Because the ice melts from the top down, the surface elevation gets lower over time. And at lower elevations, the air generally is warmer.
"As Greenland is losing ice, it gets more and more irreversible," Csatho explains, "because you get the ice into lower and lower elevations."
The research shows some exceptions to the warming trend — places where ice is building back up or temperatures are cooling. But overall, warming is winning in the Arctic.

The World's Biggest Car Company Wants To Get Rid Of Gasoline

$
0
0
Toyota President Akio Toyoda
Toyota President Akio Toyoda
The first thing you notice about the Mirai, Toyota’s new $62,000, four-door family sedan, is that it’s no Camry, an international symbol of bland conformity. First there are the in-your-face, angular grilles on the car’s front end. These deliver air to (and cool) a polymer fuel-cell stack under the hood. Then there’s the wavy, layered sides, meant to evoke a droplet of water. It looks like it was driven off the set of the Blade Runner sequel.
Just as the Prius has established itself as the first true mass-market hybrid, Toyota hopes the Mirai will one day become the first mass-market hydrogen car. On sale in Japan on Dec. 15, it will be available in the U.S. and Europe in late 2015 and has a driving range of 300 miles, much farther than most plug-in electrics can go. It also runs on the most abundant element in the universe and emits only heat and water—and none of the gases that lead to smog or contribute to global warming. “This is not an alternative to a gasoline vehicle,” says Scott Samuelsen, an engineer and director of the National Fuel Cell Research Center at the University of California at Irvine. “This is a quantum step up.”
The Mirai is hardly a speedster, though it’s quicker than a Prius. It can reach 100 kilometers (62 miles) per hour in 9.6 seconds. When you punch it, the car feels like an electric—there’s none of the vibration of a combustion engine. Driving the Mirai around a large, man-made island in Tokyo Bay called Odaiba is a little surreal. The interior is a Zen sanctuary of silence, save for the rush of wind passing around the vehicle and the occasional muffled sound of the suspension doing its work. The car can double as a mobile power station: A socket in the trunk can electrify the typical Japanese home for about a week in the event of an earthquake or other emergency.
As cool as the Mirai is, selling it is a hugely risky move. While fuel cells are a proven technology, used by NASA during Apollo missions in the 1960s to generate electricity and produce drinking water, a mass market for fuel-cell cars will require big investments in hydrogen fueling stations that may not be forthcoming. And, thanks in large part to Toyota itself, the auto industry has sunk serious money into hybrids, plug-in electrics, and advanced batteries in the expectation that these technologies will dominate the post-gasoline era, whenever that may be. “Every manufacturer has multiple hybrids and electrics coming,” says Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation(AN), the largest U.S. retailer of new cars, trucks, and SUVs. “And here you have Toyota saying, ‘We’re not going to go full electric. The ultimate answer is fuel cells.’ ”
Volkswagen (VOW:GR) CEO Martin Winterkorn, Nissan Motor boss Carlos Ghosn, and Tesla Motors (TSLA) founder Elon Musk all question the economic viability, environmental credentials, and safety of Toyota’s fuel cells. One could also ask why Toyota, which does well with its hybrids and plug-in electrics, is bothering with a commercially unproven technology that may undermine a core franchise. Akio Toyoda, Toyota Motor’s (TM) president and the scion of the automaker’s founding family, says there’s room for both plug-in electrics and hydrogen cars; he dismisses doubters. “Fifteen years ago they said the same thing about the Prius,” he says. “Since then, if you consider all [our] hybrid brands, we have sold 7 million of them.”
“We had a kind of feeling that ‘We could do it with the hybrid, why not the fuel-cell vehicle?’”
Toyoda leads one of the most finely tuned capitalist enterprises in history. The company is on course to earn a record $18.2 billion this year—more than the combined projected profits of Ford Motor (F),General Motors (GM), and Honda Motor (HMC). But Toyoda doesn’t just want to sell cars. He wants to save the planet. “The automobile industry can contribute to the sustainable growth of earth itself,” he says, without a trace of irony. “At Toyota, we are looking out 50 years and even more decades into the future. I do believe that [the] fuel-cell vehicle is the ultimate environmentally friendly car. But the point is not just to introduce it as an eco-friendly car with good mileage. I wanted it to be fun to drive and interesting as a car.”


At 58, Toyoda is owlish, wears stylish, rectangular eyewear, and is fond of such concepts as smart mobility and sustainable growth. He speaks English pretty well and has a deep, raspy, and ready laugh. He almost always carries stickers in his suit pockets of Morizo, his cartoon alter ego, which he eagerly hands out. And he regularly suits up in tailor-made Nomex fireproof, red-and-white racing gear to drive souped-up Toyota rally cars at speedways around the world. Judging by his YouTube videos, he’s on a quest to achieve the perfect “Tokyo drift.” That’s a racing maneuver pioneered in Japan involving an interplay of gear shifts, braking, and oversteering to intentionally cause a car’s rear wheels to lose traction with a track’s surface in high-speed turns.
As the grandson of founder Kiichiro Toyoda, Akio’s elevation to the top job in 2009 was nothing short of the restoration of the Toyoda clan. The last family member to run the company, Tatsuro Toyoda, gave up control in 1995 after being waylaid by a stroke.
The burden of the Toyoda family’s legacy in a recession-prone Japan can be a heavy one. Despite record profits the last two years, Toyota faces challenges. China may be the fastest-growing car market in the world, but it’s a tough market for Japanese automakers given the toxic political climate between the two countries. Toyota and other automakers have recalled millions of vehicles this year to address air bag problems at Japanese supplier Takata.
Nor has Toyoda had an easy time establishing his credibility in a hierarchical and consensus-driven culture in which corporate elders, not young mavericks, are prized. “There was a civil war internally,” says John Casesa, senior managing director of investment banking at Guggenheim Partners and a former auto analyst. “Akio was not only not part of the professional management team, but he was a member of the family that’s a whole generation younger. He had a lot of the top of the institution stacked against him.”
Toyoda says he often channels inspiration from Kiichiro in quiet moments before the family butsudan, or Buddhist altar, at his home outside Nagoya. “My grandfather was 57 when he passed away, and I’m 58 right now,” he says. “I haven’t found the answer of what my role should be, so I ask him to please use my body to create the company that he wanted.”
Just outside Nagoya, in Toyota City, where company headquarters are based, the automaker has created a community of smart homes equipped with solar cells and energy storage devices that can allow plug-in vehicles to power the dwellings in emergencies. Residents can monitor their energy usage on tablet PCs and pay lower rates as a reward for conservation and off-peak usage.
The Mirai’s profile resembles a droplet of water.Photographer: Jeremy LiebmanThe Mirai’s profile resembles a droplet of water.
Two other demonstration projects, one also in Toyota City and the other in Grenoble, France, suggest what the clean city of tomorrow might look like: ultracompact, electric vehicles for inner-city commutes that are networked to an intelligent traffic system. The more wirelessly connected trucks, cars, and buses there are, the greater the ability of software algorithms to reroute traffic, easing congestion and improving safety.
However gauzy and utopian these ideas might seem, there’s a business rationale behind them. The auto industry’s fast and furious expansion in recent decades may be, in many parts of the world, a spent force. Personal mobility is a wonderful thing, even crucial. Yet if you’re a commuter in Mumbai, where 12.5 million people are packed into about 230 square miles and six-hour traffic jams aren’t unheard of, driving to work is nuts. Only 14 percent of commutes there are by personal car, and more than half of all workers take the train, according to a report by Mumbai Railway Vikas. China, one of the last fast-growing frontiers of auto industry expansion, is an ecological wasteland. In the vehicle-saturated, rich countries, Uber’s ride-booking service and car-sharing companies such as Zipcar(CAR) offer alternatives to car ownership for a generation of younger urban commuters turned off by the expense of owning a car or concerned about the environment.
“If I put myself in Elon’s shoes, I’d be doing the same thing. He’s got his eggs in the electric vehicle basket.”
Cars, trucks, and other forms of transportation generate about 22 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, the International Energy Agency estimates. Auto accidents each year take a huge number of lives—some 1.2 million in 2013, according to the World Health Organization. So what happens when the number of cars and vehicles on the world’s roads more than doubles, from 900 million now (excluding two- and three-wheelers) to 2 billion by 2050, as the IEA forecasts?
Toyoda sees the evolution of the car as nowhere near finished. By the time hydrogen rivals fossil fuels, he envisions even more dynamic radar systems, high-resolution lasers, and predictive data systems reducing traffic fatalities. Above all, he sees the fuel-cell car as the catalyst, as he puts it, in the “creation of a hydrogen society.”


Toyota started its fuel-cell development in 1992, roughly the same time it began its work on the Prius gas-electric hybrid engine. By 2008, executives were keenly aware that Daimler (DAI:GR), Honda, and Hyundai Motor were also quickly moving forward with hydrogen car projects. Toyota Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the driving force behind the Prius, decided to move the car out of development and into mass production that year. At the time, however, the cost of manufacturing a fuel-cell car was “close to $1 million per vehicle,” says Satoshi Ogiso, Toyota’s managing officer in charge of product development and chassis engineering.
The inability of fuel-cell developers to reduce costs was a big reason why the technology never took off in the 1990s and early 2000s, despite best-selling books such as The Hydrogen Economy by futurist Jeremy Rifkin. A number of car companies began developing fuel-cell vehicles, from Honda’s FCX to GM’s Sequel, but high production costs, plus battery technology advancements, swayed momentum to electric vehicles. Toyota says it made the Mirai economically viable by reengineering the fuel-cell stack with less expensive materials, reducing the amount of platinum in the catalyst that separates hydrogen protons from electrons (electricity), and standardizing the production equipment to make the car. Toyota’s earlier work with the Prius’s power electronics and batteries also gave it an edge, says Ogiso: “We had a kind of feeling that ‘We could do it with the hybrid, why not the fuel-cell vehicle?’ ”
Toyota’s fuel-cell launch is getting plenty of government help in Japan, where some early adopters will be eligible for a 2.75 million yen ($23,754) subsidy. In the U.S., Toyota will charge $57,500 for the Mirai. Federal and state incentives could reduce the price as much as $13,000, and Toyota plans to provide free fuel to early buyers. Customers can also lease the car for three years, at $499 a month.
The Mirai’s hydrogen tank can be refilled in less than five minutes via a large hose that pumps supercooled hydrogen into the car’s pressurized tanks. In California there are 13 research hydrogen-fueling stations, 9 public stations, and an additional 18 that have been funded and are expected to be operational in the next few years. Yet it will take a far bigger build-out to give the market for hydrogen cars a chance to develop. “Its infrastructure is constrained much more than electric vehicles, where you can charge them at home,” says Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis.
One of the Mirai’s most acerbic critics is Tesla founder Musk, who sees the post-gasoline world dominated by pure electric vehicles—preferably Tesla models powered by lithium-ion battery packs. More than four years ago, Musk invited Toyoda to his California home and let him take the company’s Roadster sports car out for a spin. It was quite a bromance. Within weeks, Toyota agreed to buy a $50 million stake in Tesla and sold a shuttered California factory to its new partner for a mere $42 million.
The two agreed to make an electric Toyota RAV4 and considered extending the collaboration to retrofit the Lexus RX SUV. The RAV4 EV flopped after Toyota slapped it with a sticker price of almost $50,000—almost double the gasoline version—and limited its availability to residents of California. The bigger issue was that Toyota embraced “fool cells,” as Musk dismissively calls them.
During a news conference in Tokyo following a Tesla event in September, Musk delivered an unforgiving takedown of hydrogen cars. Currently, 95 percent of U.S. hydrogen production is made from heating up natural gas, a process that produces greenhouse emissions. Fuel-cell vehicles such as the Mirai, Musk said, are “hydrocarbon-burning cars in disguise.” While EVs take hours to recharge, the fueling cost is a fraction of the roughly $45 a hydrogen fill-up will cost. Musk also noted that hydrogen, while well-suited to the rocket business, is “highly volatile and can have explosive consequences.”
Easing the minds of consumers familiar with the 1937 Hindenburg disaster will take some effort. Toyota engineered its hydrogen tanks with a three-layer structure of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic and other materials that can withstand not only the usual crash dummy collision tests but also a bullet fired at close range. In the event of a leak, special sensors can shut off the hydrogen flow.
Electric vehicles could power Toyota smart homes in a blackout.Photographer: Jeremy LiebmanElectric vehicles could power Toyota smart homes in a blackout.
Musk’s comments have drawn return fire from Toyota North America CEO James Lentz. “If I put myself in Elon’s shoes, I’d be doing the same thing. He’s got his eggs in the electric vehicle basket,” he says. “There are drawbacks to EVs in the marketplace. Customers have range anxiety. There’s the length of time it takes to recharge.”
Musk and others have a point about one thing: The environmental benefit of fuel-cell cars won’t be fully realized if hydrogen isn’t eventually produced from renewable sources. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity, a process called electrolysis, from a renewable source such as solar is one option. Another is biomass conversion, the biochemical conversion of methane gas, say, from landfills into hydrogen. “There’s a high possibility that there will be many sources of hydrogen in the future, such as solar energy and even waste,” says Toyoda. Yet whether these methods will ever be cost-competitive with gasoline and diesel is unclear.


Every fall, Toyota’s top executives retreat to the towering pines and white stone courtyards of the Ise Grand Shrine on the Pacific Coast, about a four-hour train ride south of Tokyo. There, the company shows off its newest domestic models, and everyone pays homage to the Shinto sun goddess Amaterasu. This company loves its traditions, one of which is never to publicly criticize corporate elders.
Such restraint wasn’t shown in one of his first media appearances as president, where Toyoda sounded a little like a Greenpeace activist when he said that his company had fallen prey to “the hubris of success” and the “undisciplined pursuit of more.” That didn’t reflect well on his three nonfamily immediate predecessors—Hiroshi Okuda, Fujio Cho, and Katsuaki Watanabe.
That was in October 2009, when the industry was reeling from the financial crisis and five months after Toyota had reported a 5.5 billion yen loss. The company also became the target of U.S. regulatory scrutiny after multiple deaths were attributed to accidents involving unintended acceleration of its cars, leading to the eventual recall of 10 million vehicles over two years.
When Toyoda made an emotional apology before Congress in February 2010, he placed partial blame for the recall crisis on Toyota’s aggressive growth during the previous decade. Yet a quality review, ordered up by Toyota and led by American safety experts, concluded the problems ran deeper. The company’s slow response to acceleration problems dating back to 2002 owed much to its insularity, even arrogance. The internal review noted that Toyota was slow to respond to feedback from outside, including customers. In March, Toyota paid a $1.2 billion penalty to settle a U.S. government criminal probe into safety issues at the company.
Photographer: Jeremy Liebman
Toyoda struggled in the early stages of the crisis. “I have never seen Akio so sick; his face was white, and he was getting fat,” recalls Javier Quirós, Toyoda’s roommate at Babson College during the 1980s and president of Purdy Motor, a Toyota distributor in Costa Rica. “His grandfather and his father’s work was falling into a cascade, and he didn’t know what to do.” Auto industry consultant and author Maryann Keller believes the recall crisis was transformative for Toyoda. “Those are humbling experiences for somebody who wasn’t previously humbled,” she says. “That was a pivotal time that did change him.”
After years of emphasizing faster development cycles to revamp its lineup with freshly redesigned models, Toyoda tacked on four weeks of work to shore up the reliability and safety of each new car. The company named chief quality officers for North America and other regions, all of whom have direct lines to Toyoda. It also became one of the first full-line vehicle makers to make an advanced brake override system standard on new models. Toyoda has a moratorium on new assembly plants until 2016.
He took some criticism internally when he urged executives to return to basics and pull back from the breakneck plant and product expansions of the previous decade, according to Shigeki Tomoyama, a managing officer in charge of business development and IT. Given the company’s sales-driven culture, that was kind of like placing Godzilla on a vegan diet. “Only Toyoda could say that,” says Tomoyama. “He is from the family, so he’s allowed to talk about the longer term.” Toyoda is open about the second-guessing he sometimes gets from the company’s old guard. “The past presidents that I have spoken with say that I don’t understand my responsibility,” he says with a smile. “I believe that I’m aware and that I understand.”
Toyoda’s most immediate adversary may be prosperity. The automaker’s $210 billion market value is greater than that of Ford, GM, Honda, and Nissan combined—and eight times that of Tesla. The Toyota Camry is the best-selling car in America, and the revived Lexus brand and Toyota lineup finished No. 1 and No. 2 for the second straight year in the annual Consumer Reports quality survey of the U.S. new-vehicle market.
Toyoda could well run the company for roughly another decade. By then the world will get a better sense of whether his legacy play of fuel-cell vehicles and new forms of mobility has a realistic shot. It’s a world that his grandfather, Kiichiro, could scarcely have imagined. Yet one way or another, Toyota’s hydrogen car embrace will probably inform how Akio is remembered 30 years from now.
With Matthew Winkler
Bremner_190
Bremner is an editor for Bloomberg News in Tokyo. Follow him on Twitter@bxbremner.

NPR: Federal Judge Regrets Harsh Human Toll Of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

$
0
0
Judge John Gleeson says, about mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, "people in Congress meant well. ... But it just turns out that policy is wrong."
Judge John Gleeson says, about mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, "people in Congress meant well. ... But it just turns out that policy is wrong."
The shocking death of basketball player Len Bias from a cocaine overdose in 1986 led Congress to pass tough mandatory sentences for drug crimes.
Carrie Johnson and Marisa Penaloza
It seems long ago now, but in the 1960s, '70s and '80s, murders and robberies exploded as cocaine and other illegal drugs ravaged American cities.
Then came June 19, 1986, when the overdose of a college athlete sent the nation into shock just days after the NBA draft. Basketball star Len Bias could have been anybody's brother or son.
Congress swiftly responded by passing tough mandatory sentences for drug crimes. Those sentences, still in place, pack federal prisons to this day. More than half of the 219,000 federal prisoners are serving time for drug offenses.
"This was a different time in our history," remembers U.S. District Judge John Gleeson. "Crime rates were way up, there was a lot of violence that was perceived to be associated with crack at the time. People in Congress meant well. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But it just turns out that policy is wrong. It was wrong at the time."
From his chambers in Brooklyn, a short walk from the soaring bridge, Gleeson has become one of the fiercest critics of mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
"Mandatory minimums, to some degree, sometimes entirely, take judging out of the mix," he says. "That's a bad thing for our system."
The rail-thin Gleeson made his name as a prosecutor. He's a law-and-order man who had no problem sending mobster John Gotti to prison for life. But those long mandatory sentences in many drug cases weigh on Gleeson.
The judge sprinkles his opinions with personal details about the people the law still forces him to lock up for years. In one case, he points out, the only experience a small-time drug defendant had with violence was as a victim.
"We talk about numbers, but at the end of the process it's not a number that's getting the sentence," Gleeson says. "It's a person, a person with a family from a community."
Bill Otis is another former federal prosecutor with a very different view. "People are in prison because of their own bad choices," he says.
Otis worked for the Drug Enforcement Administration and in the George H.W. Bush White House. He says the 1980s "tough on crime" strategies helped push crime to today's record lows.
"There is a reason that stiff sentencing came about," Otis says. "It was an answer to the crime wave during the '60s and '70s. And the answer has been successful. People are safer now than they were at any time since the baby boomers were in grade school."
That's true — but no one knows whether locking up so many nonviolent drug offenders made the difference, according to New York University law professor Rachel Barkow.
"This wonderful crime drop we're experiencing right now, sadly, criminologists can't tell you exactly why it's happening," says Barkow, who also sits on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the group that sets sentencing guidelines for federal crimes.
To her young law students, Barkow says, she stresses this idea.
"Imagine if I gave you a four-year sentence that would mean your entire college stretch, you would be away in prison," she says. "You'd miss all those birthdays, you'd miss the passing of loved ones, you would miss things that happen in your family's lives that you can't get back."
Then, Barkow says, she asks her students to imagine going to prison for 10 years, or 20, or the rest of their lives — and whether those drug crimes fit that punishment.
At his Virginia home, where an old basset hound named Moe settles near his feet, Otis says he worries more about the victims of crime.
"Crime causes a huge amount of human suffering," Otis says. "It makes people feel insecure where they're walking, in their homes. It makes them feel distrustful and vulnerable. That human suffering counts."
More and more, lawyers and judges and members of Congress are having this very debate. Keeping communities safe — protecting the public — is the main goal. But it costs nearly $7 billion a year to house so many people in federal prison. Lawmakers have introduced bipartisan legislation dialing back some of the penalties. But so far nothing has been passed.
Back in Brooklyn, Judge Gleeson walks into courtroom C6, where he greets the lawyers and asks for jurors to file in for service. Gleeson is overseeing a trial by jury today. But he says that's rare.
In the current system, only 3 percent of federal cases ever go to trial. He says prosecutors can use the threat of mandatory minimums to coerce guilty pleas and long sentences.
"Plea bargains are struck in the United States attorney's office — nobody sees them happen, there's no transparency," Gleeson says. "Transparency in and of itself is a very important value in our system, and we don't have enough of it. The trials are disappearing."
Then, there's the issue of what to do about people already in prison. The Justice Department and the White House have invited thousands of prisoners who committed nonviolent drug crimes to apply for early release or pardons.
That effort is called Clemency Project 2014. But many people, including Barkow, worry that it won't make much of a dent.
"I think at best Clemency Project 2014 is a Band-Aid," she says.
Barkow says the Justice Department — which puts people in prison in the first place — is the wrong agency to consider whether to let them out.
"I mean, no sane government designer would say, 'Well, where should we put clemency? Well, how about we give it to the prosecutors who brought the cases in the first place?' It's crazy," Barkow adds.
Lawyers tell NPR the administration is expected to announce that it will grant clemency to a modest number of nonviolent drug offenders this holiday season.

Uninsured Rate Nears Historic Low (And Plummeting)

Colin Powell Backs Obama On U.S. - Cuba Relations

$
0
0

Cuba-U.S. relations: Colin Powell backs Obama on diplomatic changes

President Obama announced Wednesday that more than 50 years after the U.S. cut diplomatic ties with Cuba, he would begin normalizing relations between the two countries. While critics from both parties voiced their concerns, some officials are optimistic.
"This is still a terrible regime. We don't support their form of government. We don't like what they're doing," former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday on "CBS This Morning.""But I think having diplomatic relations, as we have had with the Soviet Union, with Vietnam and so many other places, we can produce positive change."
President George W. Bush supported the economic embargo on Cuba as did Powell during Mr. Bush's first term. Eleven years ago, Powell opposed relaxing restrictions against Cuba because he believed Fidel Castro would use it to enhance his power.
"Over the last 50 years I have watched this policy unfold, and I have been a part of it," he said. "And as secretary of state ... I supported it and even strengthened the sanctions against Cuba. But I think it's time now to turn that page of history."
Powell said Congress won't lift U.S. sanctions against the dictatorship but said having an ambassador in Cuba is a step forward.
"My experience in all of this is once you start talking to someone, you're almost inserting a poison pill into the system where they have to start responding to the pressures that they are still under," he said.
But Powell warned against overemphasizing the leaders' recent actions.
"I hope our ambassador going in will make sure that we give this message to them at every opportunity," Powell said.While this is a move in a different direction, Powell said there are still many steps Cuba needs to take to solidify its relationship with the U.S., including "releasing political prisoners, opening up the economy, making life easier and more open for the Cuban people."
The former secretary of state also addressed theSony hacking scandal as the U.S. was moving closer to blaming North Korea for the attack.
"If we can identify that the North Koreans did it and if we can be specific as to who did it within North Korea, then I think appropriate action has to be taken," Powell said. "... We are rather limited in what we can do to North Korea that we haven't already done, but I'll wait and see what the administration announces, and then we'll go from there."

100,000 Prisoners Are In For Low-Level Drug Offenses. Obama Just Released 8

$
0
0


The United States Is A Singularly Cruel, Vengeful Nation. Solitary Confinement For Kids

"The Caging Of America: American Prisons Routinely Used To Incarcerate The Mentally Ill. 500,000 Behind Bars"
Alan: At $30,000.00 per year, it costs $15,000,000,000.00 a year to warehouse these "criminals." That's $150 billion per decade. A billion here, a billion there... Pretty soon it adds up to real money. 
Real money stupidly spent.

Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of U.S. Prison System Posts

100,000 Prisoners Are In For Low-Level Drug Offenses. Obama Just Released 8 
President Obama granted 12 pardons and 8 commutations on Wednesday. The pardons, given mostly to people who had served out their sentences long ago, were for a variety of mostly minor offenses ranging from "working a distillery on which the required sign is not placed" to "manufacture of marijuana" to wire fraud.
Of more interest to the debate over criminal justice reform are the 8 commutations handed out to low-level cocaine offenders given steep sentences ranging anywhere from several decades to life. Instead, these prison sentences are now set to expire next year.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a statement on the 8 commutations, saying "their punishments did not fit their crimes, and sentencing laws and policies have since been updated to ensure more fairness for low-level offenders. All eight of these individuals meet the criteria I laid out under the President’s direction when I announced the Clemency Initiative in April."
This is undoubtedly true, but the new clemency guidelines apply to thousands of prisoners, perhaps tens of thousands. While the eight commutations are a start, they're  less than a drop in the bucket when it comes to the total universe of low-level drug offenders serving unreasonably harsh sentences.
There are at least 300,000 prisoners serving state and federal sentences for various drug crimes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of those, at least 100,000 are imprisoned for simple drug possession alone, and thousands more are doing time for other low-level offenses.
Given this context, the eight commutations are a marginal step toward realizing the promise of sentencing reform. And as noted many times before, Obama is the most pardon-averse president in history. Prisoners who apply for some form of clemency have roughly a 1-in-213 chance of receiving it these days, the steepest odds under any president.
This is partly a function of the high volume of clemency requests Obama receives. But even when we just look at clemencies granted, Obama still stands out as an unforgiving president. He's averaged about 1.6 pardons and commutations per month of his term, the lowest of any president whose pardons are tracked by the Justice Dept.
This is part of a trend going back to at least Woodrow Wilson of presidents being less willing to issue pardons. This is particularly significant when you consider that the prison population has skyrocketed over the same time period. In addition to locking more people up and giving them harsher sentences, presidents have also been giving inmates less relief.
Of course, clemency reform has never been a truly comprehensive approach to fixing the problems of our justice system. The president is unlikely to grant relief to tens of thousands of inmates. Rather, true reform will only happen by reworking sentencing rules so that we're not locking people up for low-level crime to begin with.
The Smarter Sentencing Act would have been a modest step in this direction. It would have reduced, but not eliminated, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. But despite bipartisan support, Congress left it on the table unfinished this year.


Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

Stephen Colbert: Best Pax Posts

$
0
0
"Stephen Colbert is a practicing Roman Catholic and a Sunday school teacher."
Wikipedia



  • Pax on both houses: Stephen Colbert on Climate Change

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../stephen-colbert-on-climate-change.ht...

    Jun 7, 2012 - Stephen Colbert Reviews Climate Change and Sea Level Rise As Seen by NC Republicans. "Sink or Swim".
  • Pax on both houses: Colbert Probes "Excellent Sheep": Why ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../stephen-colbert-excellent-sheep-why....

    Oct 17, 2014 - Alan: Colbert is unusually hard on Deresiewicz... and correspondingly funny. In this instance I wish Stephen had reserved his wit for one of the ...
  • Pax on both houses: Stephen Colbert In Top Form. Pope ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../stephen-colbert-in-top-form-comment...

    May 16, 2014 - Colbert comments on Pope Francis' Martian musings and marvels at Marco Rubio's commitment to anti-scientific yahooism:.
  • Pax on both houses: Colbert Celebrates Veterans ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/.../stephen-colbert-celebrates-va.ht...

    May 24, 2014 - On last night's Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert feigned ecstasy upon ... the shoe box in the back of the White House closet labelled, 'To Do.'”.
  • Pax on both houses: Stephen Colbert On This Twisted ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../stephen-colbert-on-this-twisted.html

    May 25, 2014 - Stephen Colbert On USA Christian Nation. Bill McKibben: "The Christian Paradox: How A Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong".
  • Pax on both houses: Catholic Sunday School Teacher ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../catholic-sunday-school-teacher-stephe...

    Jul 24, 2014 - Catholic Sunday School Teacher Stephen Colbert Gets It Right. StephenColbert Talks Faith In Christ, Childhood Tragedy.
  • Pax on both houses: Stephen Colbert Talks Faith In Christ ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../stephen-colbert-talks-faith-in-christ.ht...

    Jul 6, 2014 - Stephen Colbert, the popular host of Comedy Central's satirical news show “The Colbert Report,” portrays an over-the-top conservative ...
  • Pax on both houses: Stephen Colbert: The NRA and ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../stephen-colbert-nra-and-background....

    May 3, 2013 - 1 day ago - Uploaded by DailyColbertReport. As grieving families start to win the emotional argument on gun control, Senator Rand Paul ...
  • Pax on both houses: Stephen Colbert On Republican ...

    paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/.../stephen-colbert-on-republican-enthusi...

    Sep 5, 2012 - Stephen Colbert On Republican Enthusiasm. Stephen Colbert Upside Down. The pertinent bit of the following Stephen Colbert Show starts at ..
  • As "Colbert Report" Comes To An End, A Look Back At Some Favorite Shticks
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/as-colbert-report-comes-to-end-look.html


  • As "Colbert Report" Comes To An End, A Look Back At Some Favorite Shticks

    $
    0
    0

    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/stephen-colbert-best-pax-posts.html



    On Thursday night, the last episode of "The Colbert Report" will air, and the faux-conservative character "Stephen Colbert" will end with the show. The next time Colbert will appear on late night television next year, as David Letterman's replacement, he will be a new, unfamiliar Colbert -- likely still hilarious, but probably in a very different way.
    Here are some of the Fix's favorite moments with "Stephen Colbert" -- on the Report, his prior life at "The Daily Show," and a few brushes with actual government.
    Warning: As you might imagine, some of these clips have salty language.
    When Jon Stewart and Colbert burst out laughing on the Daily Show
    Some of the best moments Colbert had on Comedy Central involved Stewart -- especially when they couldn't help but bursting out in laughter at the absurdity of what they were doing. Enjoy this old Daily Show clip about the British monarchy. (Side note: Both Stewart and Colbert look unbelievably young.)

    The glory of 'Downton Abbey' actors re-enacting 'Breaking Bad'

    That time Colbert danced with everyone to the dulcet tones of Daft Punk
    Including Henry Kissinger.

    Colbert Dances to Daft Punk's Get Lucky HD by daftworld

    Truthiness
    The only reason you think this is a word? Stephen Colbert.

    The fact that no one loved being on the Colbert Report more than James Franco
    Every single time he went on, he had this ridiculous grin on his face the entire time. This may have been because he is James Franco, or it might be because he was so excited about the possibility of a Tolkien showdown.

    When Colbert talked about his mom
    This moment was heartbreaking. In 2013, Colbert's mother died, and he spent a few moments talking about her on the Report -- as Stephen Colbert, the man we're finally going to see more of on his new show, not "Stephen Colbert," who will disappear tonight.
    When Colbert did a bit at the White House Correspondents' Dinner
    It was 2006, and unlike most comedic bits at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, people had lots of feelings about it. Not only that; it was memorable.

    When Stephen Colbert testified in front of a House subcommittee
    As a fictional character. American government is great.

    The Colbert super PAC
    Colbert's super PAC and Ham Rove made many memorable appearances on the Report -- and managed to teach people more about campaign finance than many other news outlets. The best segment featuring the super PAC may have been the one where Colbert was forced to say aloudsome of the names of people who had donated to his PAC.

    When Stephen Colbert managed to make a weirder campaign ad than Herman Cain

    He introduced us to Johnny Cummings -- mayor of Vicco, Ky.


    Jaime Fuller reports on national politics for "The Fix" and Post Politics. She worked previously as an associate editor at the American Prospect, a political magazine based in Washington, D.C.


    U.S. Map Showing Ancestry With Largest Population Percentage In Each County

    Pope Francis' Role In Cuba Stretches Back Years

    $
    0
    0
    VATICAN-US-OBAMA-POPE
    It has been a generation since Pope John Paul II helped kickstart the collapse of the Soviet Union through his support for anti-communists in his native Poland. Now a new pontiff, Francis, has taken up where John Paul left off.
    Francis, the first Latin American pope, has been credited with taking a key role in beginning to heal one of the Cold War’s last open wounds:  the standoff between Cuba and the United States.
    Like John Paul, Francis wielded diplomacy in a part of the world he knows well and cares deeply about. And like John Paul, he may have benefitted from the tides of history, acting when the time was ripe for change.
    On Thursday, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, called Francis’ input “very significant.” Austen Ivereigh, a British writer and biographer of Francis, described a letter the pope wrote to President Obama and Cuban leader Raul Castro this summer as “the clincher.”
    “It reflected the determination to work on the issue Francis had shown when he became pope in 2013,” he said. “Francis is a genius at breaking through and building bridges across boundaries.”
    In his book, “The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope,” Ivereigh recounts how Francis, then Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the coadjutor archbishop of Buenos Aires, accompanied John Paul to Cuba in January 1998 as a Latin American church delegate.
    After the trip, he was asked by the Vatican to write a book, "Dialogues between John Paul II and Fidel Castro." Bergoglio was highly critical of Cuba’s crackdown on freedoms, but also said, “The motives which led the United States to impose the embargo have been entirely superseded in the present time.”
    On Wednesday, President Obama thanked Francis for showing the world “the importance of pursuing the world as it should be, rather than simply settling for the world as it is.”
    Other key players at the Vatican were Parolin and the archbishop of Havana, Cardinal Jaime Ortega, who is known to be close to Francis.
    Although the Vatican diplomatic effort went into high gear when Obama signaled his desire to start talks with Cuba, popes have been pushing to end Cuba’s isolation for decades. Among them were Pope Benedict, who visited Cuba in 2012, and John Paul II, who visited in 1998.
    Francis has shown an appetite for attempting to resolve international conflicts, not always so successfully. In June he hosted a prayer meeting in the Vatican gardens with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority. Peres described Francis at the time as a “bridge builder of brotherhood and peace.”
    Peace, however, has remained elusive in the Middle East.
    On Thursday, referring to the Cuba deal, Francis said, “Today we're all happy, because we saw how two people who had been so far apart for so many years took a step closer yesterday.”
    Perhaps the greatest diplomatic challenge for Francis will be to restore relations between the Vatican and China, where authorities continue to appoint their own Catholic bishops, much to the displeasure of Rome.
    Kington is a special correspondent

    Cuban-American Views On Normalizing U.S. Cuban Relations

    $
    0
    0
    Cuban-American Dara Torres
    "A poll of Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County conducted this year by Florida International University found that 68 percent were open to the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, a number that rises to 88 percent among those younger than 30. But the Hispanic population of Florida is increasingly multidimensional, with a large number of former residents of Puerto Rico and others from Latin and South America, for whom the issue of Cuba is not paramount. This has been particularly true in the growing Orlando area; Mr. Obama’s victory in Florida in 2012 was powered in part by his sizable margins in two heavily Hispanic counties."

    Double-Amputee Gets Intuitively Responsive Robot Arms

    $
    0
    0

    "Since God Doesn't Heal Amputees, Humankind Will. The Future Of Christian Theology"

    Les Baugh lost both of his arms over 40 years ago in a "freak" electrical accident. Now, in this footage, we get to see him doing everyday things he hasn't done for decades, courtesy of not one but two robotic prosthetic limbs.
    The video, which we saw on the Deus Ex Facebook page (of course), is just incredible. Not only in terms of the changes this will make to Baugh's life, but just the fact he looks like something straight out of science-fiction.4
    Les' arms were made by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Because they're attached directly to nerves in his shoulders, he operates them simply by thinking, as though they were the same arms he'd been born with (though he does have to shift each section of the arm one-at-a-time before "resting").

    The Borowitz Report: Marco Rubio Vows To Block The 21st Century

    $
    0
    0


    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Seizing upon an issue that could become the cornerstone of a possible 2016 Presidential campaign, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on Thursday that he would do everything in his power to block the twenty-first century.

    Sandy Hook Mom Wants You To Read Letter She Wrote To The Mom She Used To Be

    $
    0
    0




    Adam Lanza
    Three Views

    "Gun Cartoons and Gun Violence Bibliography"


    To the mom I used to be: 

    Two years ago, you were happy and whole. You had a plan for life — start a new business, get involved in the school PTA, teach your sons how to ride bicycles and play sports, spend as much time with your friends and parents as possible, watch your children mature, grow old with your husband. You were optimistic — a "glass half full" person who saw the silver lining in every cloud and often felt so much joy you thought you would burst. You always looked forward — never backwards, no regrets. You smiled and laughed a lot. You danced.

    You aren't that person anymore.

    The Hockley family
    The Hockley family, before: Dylan, Ian, Nicole and Jake
    Two years ago, on December 14, 2012, the world changed and you changed with it. A disturbed young man with access to high-powered firearms went to your sons' school and killed six educators and twenty first-graders. Your eldest son Jake survived, but was changed by the day he discovered some monsters are real. He describes it as the day "when hell came to my school." Your youngest son, Dylan, your beautiful baby boy who you thought of as pure love, with his captivating eyes, infectious giggle and warm deep cuddles, was killed. Shot multiple times, dying instantly in the arms of his special education assistant who also died while trying to protect him.  

    First day of school for the Hockley brothers in 2012
    First day of school for the Hockley brothers, Dylan and Jake, in 2012
    The tragedy changed every single aspect of your life, not only because of the obvious absence of your child, but because of the constant hole inside you that can never be filled. Your eldest son has been forced to grow up way too fast because of the unfathomable loss of his baby brother. The pain has altered the lines on your husband’s face. The way you look at the world has changed. Your interactions with friends and family seem foreign. You've become much harder. No longer brimming with optimism, you are now someone far more realistic and still. And you look back so much more.


    You view life through the prism of "before” and “after." Jake’s fifth grade photos came recently. They are still sitting on a table because you haven’t put them in the frame that sits next to Dylan’s last school photo. It’s too hard for you — too soon. Jake is getting older. But Dylan is frozen in time forever. Even after two years, there’s this denial that is still very present inside you. You have Dylan’s baby teeth and a lock of his hair on your bedside cabinet, beside the urn holding his ashes. That’s all you have of your little boy now.

    It hurts. It just hurts. You suppress your feelings as much as you can because you fear if you really let it out, you would never recover. If you started truly crying, you would never be able to stop. It would destroy you. 

    And here's the thing — you didn't have to be that Mom. For all the Moms and Dads reading this now — this doesn't have to be you. 

    Because every gun-related death is a preventable death.  


    "Gun Cartoons and Gun Violence Bibliography"


    These are not random acts. You can’t ever say, “This will never happen to me.” It can happen to anyone, at any point, at any place. You have to care enough and be insightful enough to do something before it’s too late.

    Ian and Nicole Hockley, parents of Sandy Hook School shooting victim Dylan, listen at a news conference at Edmond Town Hall in Newtown, Conn., Monday,...
    AP file
    After: Ian and Nicole Hockley at a news conference one month after their son Dylan was killed in the Sandy Hook School shooting.
    Taking action to protect children from gun violence can take many forms. For some people that means fighting for policy and political change — that can be a long, frustrating road, and certainly not the only option. Small but meaningful actions create change. If you have five minutes, start a dialogue at the dinner table about gun violence with your kids. If you have two hours, host a conversation with other parents. If you can dedicate one day a month, work with educators on how to better recognize the signs of children who may be troubled and reach out to their parents immediately. But to do nothing? That doesn’t honor the dead and doesn’t protect the living.

    One of the most important actions families, schools, employers and communities can do is learn the signs of someone in crisis and then intervene before they hurt themselves or someone else. We need to teach kids better anger management and conflict resolution skills, because much of gun violence stems from anger and fear. 

    Alan: Anger and fear characterize second amendment evangelists 
    as much as murderous shooters themselves.
    Very often they are mirror images of one another.

    "Gun Cartoons and Gun Violence Bibliography"

    Learning other ways to deal with anger and fear rather than striking out at someone is a good first step. We need to recognize the signs on social media— and know the difference between someone who is just angry and someone who poses an imminent threat. Lines of communication always need to remain open between ourselves and our children. 

    Moving forward, together: Holding a picture of his youngest son Dylan, Ian Hockley stands with his wife Nicole and their oldest son Jake at a recent community gathering.
    Moving forward, together: Holding a picture of his youngest son Dylan, Ian Hockley stands with his wife Nicole and their oldest son Jake at a recent community gathering.
    I am beginning to feel some of my old optimism returning, because more and more people are engaging around this issue. Our conversation is gaining momentum. I sense a sea change is coming. I know everything we’re doing at Sandy Hook Promise will protect more children. We’re fighting a good fight. 

    But after every sort of victory, there’s also a moment of incredible sadness for me, for whatever happens, I know I still can’t bring Dylan back. That hole will never be filled. No matter how many lives get saved in his name, or in the name of others, I can’t go back. But you can go forward and make a difference.

    With love,

    Nicole Hockley, a.k.a. Dylan’s mom

    All Of The Sandy Hook Dead
    Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting
    Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

    • Charlotte Bacon 6

      Daniel Barden 7

      Rachel Davino 29

      Olivia Engel 6

      Josephine Gay 7

      Ann Marquez Greene 6

      Dawn Hochsprung 47

      Dylan Hockley 6

      Madeleine F Hsu 6

      Catherine V Hubbard 6

      Chase Kowalski 7

      Nancy Lanza 52 (the mother of Adam Lanza 20, the shooter)

      Jesse Lewis 6

      James Mattioli 6

      Grace McDonnell 7

      Anne Marie Murphy 52

      Emille Parker 6

      Jack Pinto 6

      Noah Pozner 6

      Caroline Previdi 6

      Jessica Rekos 6

      Avielle Richman 6


      Lauren Rousseau 30

      Mary Sherlach 56

      Victoria Soto 27

      Benjamin Wheeler 6

      Allison Wyatt 6



    Fewer Guns, Fewer Suicides. (Suicide By Firearm Is Bigger Problem Than Homicide)

    $
    0
    0
    Man examining handgun at his home, Westminster, Colorado.
    Handguns: Specifically Designed To Kill Human Beings

    "Gun Cartoons and Gun Violence Bibliography"

    Excerpt: "While reduced household gun ownership did lead to more suicides by other means, suicides went down overall. That’s because contrary to the “folk wisdom” that people who want to commit suicide will always find a way to get the job done, suicides are not inevitable. Suicides are often impulsive decisions, and guns require less forethought than other means of suicide—and they’re also deadlier... Our research had to overcome the fact that no one knows with great precision how many guns there are in America, how many households own a gun, how gun ownership varies demographically and geographically, what types of guns there are, or how guns are used. In part that’s because in 1996, Congress banned the CDC from funding any research to "advocate or promote gun control." That’s not a ban on gun research, technically, but after Congress extended the wording and expanded the ban to other agencies, it had enough of a chilling effect to reduce CDC funding for gun violence research from $2.5 million per year in the early 1990s to just $100,000 in recent years.,, Following the 1996 killing of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, a strong movement for gun control developed in Australia. States and territories made uniform and more stringent regulations for the possession of firearms, and instituted a buy-back of the newly illegal guns, most of which were rifles and shotguns. As Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill determined in a paper published in the American Law and Economics Review, these changes resulted in a reduction of the country’s firearm stock by 20 percent, or more than 650,000 firearms, and evidence suggests that it nearly halved the share of Australian households with one or more firearms. The effect of this reduction was an 80 percent fall in suicides by firearm, concentrated in regions with the biggest drop in firearms. Meanwhile there was little sign of any lasting rise in non-firearm suicides. Suicide gets less attention, less funding, and less concern than many other kinds of deaths. San Francisco spent $26.5 million installing a new median barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge even though there hasn't been a fatal head-on car crash on the bridge in 12 years. But no funds have been spent on a system to help prevent suicides, despite the fact that 10 people died committing suicide on the bridge in August of 2013 alone."

    Australian Gun Control After Port Arthur Massacre: 35 Dead

    It’s Simple: Fewer Guns, Fewer Suicides

    Two scientists explore a decade of data to find the tie between gun ownership and suicide in America.

    The relationship between guns and suicide is easier to study than guns and homicide.

    In the year since Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster rifle to gun down 20 children in Newtown, Conn., the discourse on gun control has focused on mass shootings and homicides. That’s not surprising: Terrible events dominate the cable news cycle, and murders get reported every day in our nation’s newspapers. But if we want to talk about the effects of guns, we should remember this: In a typical year, suicides outnumber homicides by 3 to 1 and a majority of suicides are by firearm. Suicides come in ones and twos, here and there; they rarely make the national news, and when they are reported at all they are veiled in euphemism (“He died suddenly”). Suicides go so under-reported that Slate’s Gun Deaths Project, which collects data from news articles and other online sources, categorizes only roughly one-tenth of the reported deaths as suicides.
    The national conversation about guns, and about gun control, should include the relationship between guns and suicide. We recently analyzed a decade’s worth of data on guns and suicides in the United States and we found that the relationship is clear: more guns, more suicides.
    Suicide is neglected compared with the large quantity of research on the relationship between homicides and guns, a relationship which remains controversial because it’s difficult to demonstrate causality. Places with lots of guns may have high homicide rates, but is this because guns cause homicide or because homicides cause people to buy guns? Or could a third factor—say, a general lack of social trust or high violence in a region—be causing both homicides and gun possession? The relationship between suicides and guns is much easier to tackle because it’s unlikely that an increase in the number of suicides in a community would cause an increase in local gun ownership.
    So in a new paper published in the International Review of Law and Economics, we studied the relationship between guns and suicide in the U.S. from 2000 to 2009. Using five measures of gun ownership and controlling for other factors associated with suicide, such as mental illness, we consistently found that each 1 percentage-point increase in household gun ownership rates leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent more suicides. Or, to put it the other way, a percentage-point decrease in household gun ownership leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent fewer suicides.
    Are the people not killing themselves with guns simply committing suicide by other means? Some are—but not all. While reduced household gun ownership did lead to more suicides by other means, suicides went down overall. That’s because contrary to the “folk wisdom” that people who want to commit suicide will always find a way to get the job done, suicides are not inevitable. Suicides are often impulsive decisions, and guns require less forethought than other means of suicide—and they’re also deadlier.
    Our research had to overcome the fact that no one knows with great precision how many guns there are in America, how many households own a gun, how gun ownership varies demographically and geographically, what types of guns there are, or how guns are used. In part that’s because in 1996, Congress banned the CDC from funding any research to "advocate or promote gun control." That’s not a ban on gun research, technically, but after Congress extended the wording and expanded the ban to other agencies, it had enough of a chilling effect to reduce CDC funding for gun violence research from $2.5 million per year in the early 1990s to just $100,000 in recent years.
    But don’t take our critique of bans on government-funded research as a plea for more funding for our research. We would be satisfied if the CDC and other government agencies such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics were simply allowed to collect more and better data on guns, homicide and suicide. The CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System, for example, still covers only 18 states. 
    (Alan: It is beyond bizarre that the United States has not implemented violent death reporting in all 50 states. Apparently, Americans do not want to know what causes violent death. Even in this relative void, we do know that 80% of all firearm deaths in 23 industrialized countries take place in the United States. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/07/80percent-of-all-firearms-deaths-in-23.html
    President Obama lifted some of the restrictions on the CDC earlier this year, so we are cautiously optimistic about the prospects for future research. (Gun advocates and supporters of Second Amendment rights shouldn’t assume that more research simply means more arguments against guns. We are eager, for example, to see more studies on the defensive use of guns, a phenomenon about which there is currently very little trustworthy data. Moreover, better research might find ways of reducing gun violence without violating Second Amendment rights. Indeed, reducing gun violence could be one of the best ways of reducing the demand for gun control.)
    Despite challenges presented by the data, our findings appear robust and are consistent with a series of “natural experiments” from around the world. For example, following the 1996 killing of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, a strong movement for gun control developed in Australia. States and territories made uniform and more stringent regulations for the possession of firearms, and instituted a buy-back of the newly illegal guns, most of which were rifles and shotguns. As Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill determined in a paper published in the American Law and Economics Review, these changes resulted in a reduction of the country’s firearm stock by 20 percent, or more than 650,000 firearms, and evidence suggests that it nearly halved the share of Australian households with one or more firearms. The effect of this reduction was an 80 percent fall in suicides by firearm, concentrated in regions with the biggest drop in firearms. Meanwhile there was little sign of any lasting rise in non-firearm suicides.
    Suicide is a leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults, and limiting access to guns during those formative, sometimes unsteady years can have a real effect on suicides. In Israel most 18- to 21-year-olds are drafted into the Israeli Defense Forces and provided with military training—and weapons. Suicide among young IDF members is a serious problem. In an attempt to reduce suicides, the IDF tried a new policy in 2005, prohibiting most soldiers from bringing their weapons home over the weekends. Dr. Gad Lubin, the chief mental health officer for the IDF, and his co-authors estimate that this simple change reduced the total suicide rate among young IDF members by a stunning 40 percent. It’s worth noting that even though you might think that soldiers home for the weekend could easily delay suicide by a day or two, the authors did not find an increase in suicide rates during the weekdays. These results are consistent with interviews with near-fatal suicide survivors, who often say their decision was spontaneous and who typically go on to live long lives.
    If more guns lead to more suicides, should we ban guns as Australia did? Not necessarily. We find that a 1 percentage-point increase in the household gun-ownership rate increases suicides by at most 0.9 percent. There are 114 million households in the U.S., so a 1 percentage-point increase in ownership means approximately 1.1 million more households with guns. Since there are relatively few suicides, this translates into 345 more suicides, at most. In this sense, guns are relatively benign. Most guns are never involved in a suicide or a homicide.
    But lives have great value. Government agencies such as the EPA value a statistical life at around $8.4 million (2006 dollars updated to 2012). Calculating the value of life is probably something only an economist would ever think to do, but it's a useful exercise. When evaluating everything from how much to spend on straightening roads or researching cancer drugs, we need to have some idea, however crude, of the value of lives lost and saved. At $8.4 million each the value of 345 lost lives is almost $3 billion. Considering the value of life tells us that the true price of guns is higher than the monetary price by at least $2,635, the amount needed to be able to compensate for the expected loss of life. At that price, fewer people should want to buy guns.
    Guns in the home are a risk factor for suicide, and the risk is especially great if there is a depressed adolescent living at home. Unfortunately, people don’t always weigh risks carefully. In one study, even when strongly recommended by mental health professionals to do so, most parents of a depressed adolescent didn’t remove their guns from their home. It’s also disturbing that guns were least likely to be removed when the father of the depressed adolescent had a drinking or drug problem of his own.
    Suicide gets less attention, less funding, and less concern than many other kinds of deaths. San Francisco spent $26.5 million installing a new median barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge even though there hasn't been a fatal head-on car crash on the bridge in 12 years. But no funds have been spent on a system to help prevent suicides, despite the fact that 10 people died committing suicide on the bridge in August of 2013 alone. It’s true, of course, that unlike homicides or accidents, suicide is a choice, but it’s a choice often made under the duress of crisis or depression. Moreover, suicide is not chosen by the friends, siblings, children, spouse, or parents of the person who commits suicide. Losing a loved one to suicide is a traumatic and painful experience. Suicide and its relationship to mental health, social isolation, and firearm access deserve our full attention and concern.

    Justin Briggs is a graduate student at George Mason University

    Alex Tabarrok is Bartley J. Madden Chair and professor of economics at George Mason University.


    Case Closed? Columbus Brought Syphillis From The New World To Europe

    $
    0
    0

    Editor's Recommendations

    An Arabic Christmas Carol: Byzantine Hymn Of The Nativity

    $
    0
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvjiVam2HO4



    Why Torture Doesn't Work

    $
    0
    0
    Burning Witches
    (That worked well...)

    CIA Torture Report: Best Pax Posts
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/cia-torture-report-best-pax-posts.html

    The Dime-A-Dozen Liar Who Pimped Uncle Sam To Invade Iraq

    Alan: Given Uncle Sam's demonstrated inability to distinguish "Dime-A-Dozen" lies from truth, how can "he" determine whether information given under torture is true, or de novo nonsense that cannot be corroborated in timely fashion?

    People want torture to work because they believe violence is the default solution to every problem.

    In religion, the threat of punishment is often considered the ultimate tool of enforcement, especially among religious conservatives and scriptural literalists. 

    Although the threat of punishment keeps many people "in line," it does not result in the development of good people. 

    Similarly, the punishment of torture does not result in good intelligence. 

    It may even be that those who believe in the efficacy of torture/punishment do so because, in their own lives, they have already surrendered to the threat of torture/punishment, thus betraying their own souls by submitting to putative "authority" rather than heeding their own experience, inspiration and conscience. 


    "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." 
    1 John 4:18

    "The Torture-Free True Story Of The Best USMC Interrogator In WWII"
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-torture-free-true-story-of-best.html

    Christianity's Bedrock Commitment To Torture: Remaking "The Faithful" In God's Image
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/christianitys-bedrock-commitment-to.html


    Why torture doesn't work: 
    A definitive guide
    Dick Cheney says torture is effective. 
    But the Nazis (and the Soviets and the Viet Cong and the Stasi) would disagree.
    In the wake of the Senate report cataloging a whole lot of torture committed by the CIA, Dick Cheney has been reduced to arguing that torturing people — even innocent ones — is worth doing if you eventually get good results. The ends justify the means.
    I can see why he makes this argument — he's simply got no other option. It is now obvious that what the CIA did was illegal, brutal torture. Claims that it kept the nation safe are all that Cheney has left.
    But Cheney is wrong: Torture doesn't work and never has.
    I have referenced the work Torture and Democracy, by Darius Rejali of Reed College, many times in the past. It is widely agreed to be a benchmark work on torture — perhaps the most thorough investigation and analysis of the subject available. Here's what Rejali says, to put this question to rest for all time.
    Over 12 years of research, Rejali examined the use of torture in the U.S., Great Britain, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, South Vietnam, and Korea. He looked at torture inflicted during the French-Algerian War, as well as at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay. His research found that there is no record of any successful use of torture to gather intelligence, not even in totalitarian states.
    The reasons for this are more complex than is popularly supposed.
    The first has to do with the nature of pain itself. Causing someone pain is not like turning a dial on a stove. Greater damage to the body often translates as less pain, since the body, in shock, shuts down the pain system (as victims of car accidents or shootings can often attest). Going too far, too fast with torture can simply desensitize people or cause them to black out. Furthermore, different people have different thresholds for pain, and they use certain types of pain to mask other ones. As a result, even with technological assistance, it is simply impossible to torture in any scientific, reproducible way.
    Torturers understand this, and so are drawn to two blunt techniques: (1) apply maximum allowable pain, so as to push past all limits and (2) vary the torture methods widely to exploit as many phobias and specific weaknesses as possible. One perverse result of this is that there will be constant pressure to ignore limits set by the law in favor of a maximum diversity of pain.
    Second, torture badly corrodes organizations that practice it. One of the most striking aspects revealed by the Senate report is the incompetence of the CIA, the kind of stuff that would bankrupt a lemonade stand, like losing track of who it had in custody. This is not a coincidence. As Rejali writes, in agencies that torture, "behavioral and organizational indicators show a rapid decay in professionalism."
    In addition to a temptation to break the rules, torture regimes encourage competition between interrogators to break prisoners first. All of this rots traditional investigative skills, as interrogators turn to torture as a quick and easy road to success. Why do complicated forensics if you've got a cattle prod? As a result, arguments like the ones Charles Krauthammer once made — that torture works but is a monstrous evil that should be used only rarely and under strict limitations — are not only wrong, but also unrealistic. Once used, torture inevitably spreads like kudzu.
    Third, torture directly undermines traditional intelligence gathering. Whether solving traditional crimes or penetrating the enemy in wartime, the cooperation of the public is the most valuable intelligence resource. Even in the communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe, working relationships were critical to keeping the secret police informed. Torture of sources, by contrast, destroys trust and makes normal interrogation dramatically more difficult, which is why those dictatorships kept their torture confined to political dissidents.
    Furthermore, what little information is produced under torture is extremely unreliable. Detainees with a score to settle may falsely rat out old enemies, hoping they will be tortured instead. Detainees with no information will sometimes try to appease their torturers with lies, making interrogators waste time and effort chasing false leads. The CIA did just this, in fact. The Senate report documents at least one instance in which the CIA tortured a detainee, who gave them bad information, which led to more innocent people being detained.
    Even when prisoners say true things, the interrogators very often do not believe them. This happened to John McCain when he was tortured in North Vietnam. Formal studies show that torturers cannot reliably distinguish truth from falsehood.
    Indeed, inflicting pain on someone can directly damage memory. Extreme trauma often short-circuits the process of recent memory consolidation. When a woman called Sheila Cassidy was tortured by the Pinochet regime, she was so broken mentally that she could not remember the address the interrogators wanted. Sleep-deprived victims also become disoriented and confused, and can accidentally convince themselves of things interrogators are suggesting to them, producing more false leads.
    study of the Phoenix Program, a CIA program of torture and assassination of Viet Cong members during the Vietnam War, found that it "victimized at least 38 innocents for every one actual Viet Cong agent"; the ratio is likely closer to 78 to 1. The reason is that the CIA's database was filled with crappy intelligence produced by torture, a result that fits with studies of torture in Northern Ireland and British Cyprus. Rejali concludes:
    For harvesting information, torture is the clumsiest method available to organizations, even clumsier in some cases than flipping coins or shooting randomly into crowds. The sources of error are systematic and ineradicable. [Torture and Democracy]
    That brings us to the ticking time bomb thought experiment, where someone is known to have information about an imminent attack but will not talk. This is the centerpiece of the pro-torture case. Setting aside the fact that this sort of situation is extraordinarily rare, there is no reason to think time-limited, high-pressure torture would be any more successful than in other circumstances. On the contrary, all the problems with torture identified above are made worse by a time constraint: the techniques are limited, as slow ones must be ruled out; pain must be applied more quickly, thus increasing the risk of blackouts, desensitization, or memory damage; and time wasted chasing false leads becomes an even greater loss.
    Of course, the overwhelming amount of evidence will not convince many conservatives. Torture is how the Republican Party projects toughness. The fact that it is worthless for intelligence will be denied, just like with climate change. Instead, the bluster of Dick Cheney and other people deeply implicated in the Bush torture regime and the ensuing cover-up (like Jose Rodriguez, who destroyed CIA interrogation tapes) will be cited as unquestionable proof.
    But for anyone with even a scrap of intellectual integrity, the evidence is beyond question. Torture doesn't work. Full stop.


    Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington MonthlyThe New Republic, and the Washington Post.


    Successful Vaccination Campaigns Create A Global Conspiracy Of Health

    $
    0
    0

    The Anti-Vaccination Epidemic Is Fueled By "Education," Wealth And Privilege

    A global conspiracy of health

    Michael Gerson

    In the category of stunning, heartening, woefully under-reported good news: In 2000, an estimated 9.9 million children around the world died before age 5. In 2013, the figure was 6.3 million. That is 3.6 million fewer deaths, even as the world’s population increased by about 1 billion.
    There are a variety of reasons for increased child survival, including improved prevention of malaria and HIV. But according to a recent report in the Lancet, about half of these gains came from reductions in pneumonia, diarrhea and measles — diseases addressed by vaccination. We are seeing the continuation of what is perhaps the greatest scientific contribution to human well-being: the artificial preparation of the immune system to ward off bacteria and viruses.
    Michael Gerson is a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice weekly in The Post.View Archive
    The provision of vaccines is a particularly clear instance of what economists call a global public good. A tetanus shot, for example, is a very good thing for the individual getting it; he or she doesn’t end up with lockjaw. But it is not, strictly speaking, a public good. Only the treated person benefits. The broad provision of the pneumococcal vaccine, in contrast, creates herd immunity and reduces antimicrobial resistance. The circulation of pneumonia in children is diminished, helping protect the elderly as well. Once this public good is produced, everyone can enjoy it without reducing anyone else’s share.
    What is exceptional about this particular public good is how much of it has been generated by a single source. People love to speculate about shadowy global institutions — the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission. But one little-known global institution based in Geneva — Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance — supports vaccination for nearly 60 percent of the world’s children. It is a global conspiracy of health.
    Gavi provides heavy but eventually diminishing subsidies for immunizations in poor countries. It also acts as a sort of purchasing co-op, helping nations get better prices on vaccines. And it amounts to a guaranteed market for vaccines that would not otherwise be profitable to research and produce.
    This organization has gathered attention during the Ebola crisis. Two Ebola vaccines are currently in testing and may be available (God and the science willing) by the middle of next year. Gavi is raising funds (from governments and development banks) to purchase millions of doses. Perhaps more importantly, it guarantees a market for the development of second-generation Ebola vaccines that will have a longer shelf life and work on a broader variety of strains. In addition, Gavi will help Ebola-affected countries play catch-up on other childhood vaccinations neglected during the crisis.
    But the prospect is broader. Gavi has begun an ambitious push to fund its next five-year period, with the target to provide 2.7 billion vaccine doses that will immunize 300 million children. This would prevent 5 million to 6 million deaths. The outcomes of few other development interventions are so precisely measurable. Gavi spends only 2.5  percent on overhead. The results with a given level of inputs can be specified with incredible accuracy.
    And this, in all likelihood, will be the highest level of resources Gavi will ever need. The program requires even the poorest countries to pay a portion of the cost of purchasing vaccines. Participating nations are then given five years to take over the full cost — which they generally do on schedule (barring coup or crisis). This graduated model means that, during the next five-year funding period — following the one currently being planned — only 2.1 billion doses will be required. And downward from there.
    There is serious debate about the effectiveness of certain types of development assistance. Advocates must be able to account for the lack of economic results, say, from decades of foreign aid in Haiti. But the value of vaccination as a global public good is hard to question. Gavi is rigorous, dramatically effective — and temporary.
    The Obama administration and other governments are in the process of determining their commitments to Gavi. America is generally hesitant to make large, multiyear development pledges. This should be a big, bipartisan exception.
    Viewing all 30150 articles
    Browse latest View live