In order to become a citizen of the United States, an applicant must
prove to US Citizenship and Immigration Services that he or she knows
enough about the country’s government, history and geography. There are
100 questions listed on the study guide. Applicants are typically asked
to orally answer a handful from memory.
We picked 30 questions from the
test and provided multiple-choice answers. If you had to earn your
citizenship by proving how much you know about the USA, would you pass
the test?
Pundit Alex Jones decided to make a shirtless rant in which he compared
his show to The Young Turks. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian show the
actual numbers and give you the facts. Turns out Alex should have spent a
moment putting a shirt on and checking his numbers.
Smoking pot is starting to seem old-school. Vaporizing is on the
rise, but the real competition for smoked buds is marijuana edibles.
Edibles make up an ever-increasing proportion of marijuana sales in
legal states and medical marijuana states, and at this point, the market
appears insatiable.
And these aren't your father's edibles. Back
in the day, edibles basically meant creating marijuana butter and using
it in your recipes, and your pot cookies tasted like weed. Now edibles
come in all sorts of alluring (and tasty) forms, from fudge, candy bars
and lollipops to cannabis coffees and teas.
The only limit appears to be
the entrepreneurial imagination.
But—as New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd infamously found out—edibles can be tricky.
Unlike smoked marijuana, whose effects are almost instantaneous,
allowing users to stop when they feel high enough, edibles take between a
half hour and an hour to take effect. Get impatient, eat some more, and
suddenly, you've developed a severe case of sustained couch-lock, or
something more disagreeable.
It isn't just the length of time it takes to feel their effects that makes edibles a bit tricky. Here, thanks to the Cannabist, are five reasons edibles can be unpredictable, especially when compared to smoked buds.
1. Eating edibles isn't the same thing as smoking buds.When
you touch a flame to a bud, it is decarboxylated, the psychoactive
material in the bud transformed into smoke that goes into your lungs and
then directly into your bloodstream. With edibles, the plant has
already been decarboxylated during extraction process. That means that,
depending on the extraction process, the chemical properties of the pot
could have changed. Also, when you eat instead of smoke pot, the
cannabinoids do not go directly into the bloodstream, but first pass
through the liver. Little is known about how eating versus smoking
changes the ratio of the psychoactive compounds (THC, CBD, CBN, etc.) in
the end product or in your body.
2. Edibles are generally made from undifferentiated trim.
Growers know their buds are more valuable in the smoking market than as
ingredients for edibles, but edibles makers know there is still enough
THC in the plant waste (trim) to produce edibles with psychoactive
effects. Growers are happy to get something for their trim—they used to
throw it away—and manufacturers are happy to get usable trim material at
a cheap price, so both growers and manufacturers are happy with the
trim solution. But when it comes to product predictability, the problem
is most edibles companies buy their trim from multiple growers growing
multiple strains. Just as smoking a joint of pure sativa produces a
different high from a joint of pure indica, pure sativa trim would
behave differently from pure indica trim. But in edibles, you're not
getting pure product; you're getting a mish-mash of trim with different
characteristics.
The secret of
extraction is that it can concentrate that low-potency trim into
high-potency cannabis oil, but the process also eliminates terpenes
(which provide taste and scent) and many cannabinoids present in the
whole plant. That can make cannabis oils derived from a specific variety
affect you differently than actually smoking that variety. Some edibles
makers use whole buds instead of trim; that's like the difference
between a fine Scotch grown with high-quality grain and rot-gut vodka
made out of cheap potatoes.
4. Different foods interact differently with marijuana.No
one really knows how that works. This is a function of science, or more
precisely, the lack of science around edibles. By now, smoked weed and
how it works is fairly well understood, but the science around how
marijuana interacts with different foods remains to be done. It does
appear, however, that marijuana may act as a catalyst with some herbs,
and consuming them together could have different results from consuming
them separately. We just don't know at this point.
5. The science behind edibles is a work in progress.Although
it's been more than 20 years since Brownie Mary (Mary Jane Rathbun)
began handing out pot brownies to AIDS patients in San Francisco, the
science around edibles is seriously lagging. While research on marijuana
in general has been restricted by the government, research on edibles
faces the same bureaucratic challenges and has only just begun. There is
little scientific basis for any specific claims made by edibles
purveyors. Caveat emptor.
All that said, there is no call for
panic, just common sense. We didn't need peer-reviewed scientific
research to know that pot gets you high and we don't need to know all
the hard science to understand that eating too many brownies will get
you too high. Ask your pot purveyor about his products, start small and
be patient. You can find out through self-experimentation what works for
you, and you don't have to go all Maureen Dowd to do it.
Phillip Smith is editor of the AlterNet Drug Reporter and author of the Drug War Chronicle.
Please, RNC, please spend lots of your money trying to win Pennsylvania! It will really inspire our Democratic voter turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh:
PHILADELPHIA — Republican leaders, candidates and
campaign strategists are assembling in the City of Brotherly Love to
give conservatives from its collar counties a glimpse of the party's
rising stars and make the case for winning Pennsylvania in the 2016
presidential election.
A GOP win in the state would be the first in 28 years.
“We're making a commitment to Pennsylvania and other crucial swing
states across the country,” said Republican National Committee Chairman
Reince Priebus. “By investing in Pennsylvania early and engaging in
every community across the state, we can make the inroads needed to win
in 2016.
The 2015 Northeast Republican Leadership Conference is similar
to a southern GOP conference, 20 years running and held in Oklahoma City
last month.
Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Ron Gleason said he chose
Philadelphia to host the group because it is “where the lion's share of
the vote is in Pennsylvania.” About 45 percent of the state's 8.2
million registered voters live in Philly's five surrounding counties, he
said.
About 3 million Pennsylvanians are registered Republican, state records show.
“We are here to make our case on how we win this state, finally,”
Gleason said. “... We have an opportunity here. We have put the right
people in place; we have devoted money, people, and have a good message
to win over skeptical voters.”
Most Americans will never know harm from ISIS or any Middle East
terrorist. The terrorists we must fear most come from within. They come
in many forms. Yet because they do not meet the definition of what many
would like to define as the stereotypical terrorist, it goes ignored.
What will it take?
What do you think. Let’s talk about it. Politics Done Right is a liberal radio show that encourages dialog between all ideologies with respect for all. Please visit and LIKE us on Facebook and subscribe to our YouTube channel.
The entertainment value of a President Trump, especially as seen through the truth-enhancing eye of Vic Berger, would greatly mitigate the unassailable fact
that his policies would turn our planet into a smoldering, gutted husk.
Media
pundits have already started to use the “mental illness” narrative to
characterize suspected shooter Dylann Roof. Why not call him a suspected
terrorist? (Facebook account of Dylann Roof)
Police are investigating the shooting of nine African Americans
at Emmanuel AME church in Charleston as a hate crime committed by a
white man. Unfortunately, it’s not a unique event in American history.
Black churches have long been a target of white supremacists who burned and bombed
them in an effort to terrorize the black communities that those
churches anchored. One of the most egregious terrorist acts in U.S.
history was committed against a black church in Birmingham, Ala., in
1963. Four girls were killed when members of the KKK bombed the 16th
Street Baptist Church, a tragedy that ignited the Civil Rights Movement.
But
listen to major media outlets and you won’t hear the word “terrorism”
used in coverage of Tuesday’s shooting. You won’t hear the white male
shooter, identified as 21 year old Dylann Roof, described as “a possible
terrorist.” And if coverage of recent shootings by white suspects is
any indication, he never will be.
Activist Deray McKesson noted this
morning that, while discussing Roof’s motivations, an MSNBC anchor
said “we don’t know his mental condition.” That is the power of
whiteness in America.
Dylann
Roof is in custody after police say he opened fire at a historic
African American church in Charleston, SC. Here’s a look at the
21 year old's background, including recent arrests, and what authorities
say happened inside the church. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)
U.S.
media practice a different policy when covering crimes involving
African Americans and Muslims. As suspects, they are quickly
characterized as terrorists
and thugs, motivated by evil intent instead of external injustices.
While white suspects are lone wolfs — Mayor Joseph Riley of Charleston
already emphasized this shooting was an act of just “one hateful person”
— violence by black and Muslim people is systemic, demanding response
and action from all who share their race or religion. Even black victims
are vilified. Their lives are combed for any infraction or hint of
justification for the murders or attacks that befall them: Trayvon
Martin was wearing a hoodie. Michael Brown stole cigars. Eric Garner
sold loosie cigarettes. When a black teenager who committed no crime was
tackled and held down by a police officer at a pool party in McKinney,
Tex., Fox News host Megyn Kelly described her as “No saint either.”
Early
news reports on the Charleston church shooting followed a similar
pattern. Cable news coverage of State Sen. and Rev. Clementa Pinckney,
pastor of Emmanuel AME who we now know is among the victims,
characterized his advocacy work as something that could ruffle
feathers. The habit of characterizing black victims as somehow complicit
in their own murders continues.
It will be difficult to hold to
this corrosive, racist media narrative when reporting on the shooting at
Emmanuel AME church. All those who were killed were simply
participating in a Wednesday night Bible study. And the shooter’s choice
of Emmanuel AME was most likely deliberate, given its storied history.
It was the first African Methodist Episcopal church in the South, founded in 1818 by a group of men including Morris Brown, a prominent pastor, and Denmark Vesey, the leader of a large, yet failed, slave revolt in Charleston. The church itself was targeted early on by fearful whites because it was built with funds from anti-slavery societies
in the North. In 1822, church members were investigated for involvement
in planning Vesey’s slave revolt, and the church was burned to the
ground in retribution.
With that context, it’s clear that killing the pastor and members of this church was a deliberate act of hate. Mayor Riley noted
that “The only reason that someone could walk into a church and shoot
people praying is out of hate.” But we need to take it a step further.
There was a message of intimidation behind this shooting, an act that
mirrors a history of terrorism against black institutions involved in
promoting civil and human rights. The hesitation on the part of some of
the media to label the white male killer a terrorist is telling.
In
the rapidly forming news narrative, the fact that black churches and
mosques historically have been the targets of racial violence in America
should not be overlooked. While the 1963 Birmingham church is the most
historic, there also was a series of church burnings
during the 1990's. Recognition of the terror those and similar acts
impose on communities seems to have been forgotten post-Sept. 11. The
subsequent Islamophobia that has gripped sectors of media and politics
suggests that “terrorism” only applies in cases where the suspects are
darker skinned.
This time, I hope that reporters and newscasters
will ask the questions that get to the root of acts of racially
motivated violence in America. Where did this man, who killed
parishioners in their church during Bible study, learn to hate black
people so much? Did he have an allegiance to the Confederate flag that
continues to fly over the state house of South Carolina? Was he
influenced by right-wing media’s endless portrayals of black Americans
as lazy and violent?
I hope the media coverage won’t fall back on
the typical narrative ascribed to white male shooters: a lone,
disturbed or mentally ill young man failed by society. This is not
an act of just “one hateful person.” It is a manifestation of the racial
hatred and white supremacy that continues to pervade our society, 50
years after the Birmingham church bombing galvanized the Civil Rights
Movement. It should be covered as such. And now that authorities have found their suspect, we should be calling him what he is: a terrorist.
Anthea Butler is an associate professor of religion and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of a
U.S. agency that fell victim to cyber attacks defended its performance
on Tuesday against withering criticism from lawmakers furious about a
breach that compromised the personnel files of millions of federal
workers.
Katherine Archuleta, director of the Office
of Personnel Management, said problems exposed by the cyber attacks
discovered in April and linked by U.S. officials to China were "decades
in the making."
Although she said her agency
thwarts hackers 10 million times per month, members of the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs insisted that the
successful hacks showed data security could not have been a priority for
the OPM.
Some suggested that top officials resign.
"You failed. You failed utterly and totally," said Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz, the committee's chairman.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Katherine Archuleta (L) testifies
U.S. officials have said they suspect China, but the administration has not yet publicly accused Beijing.
China denies any involvement in hacking U.S. databases.
Tuesday's
congressional hearing was the first since U.S. officials announced
early this month that hackers had broken into OPM computers and the data
of 4 million current and former federal employees had been compromised.
Since
then, they revealed another security breach that put at risk the
personal information and intimate details of many millions more
Americans - and their relatives and friends - who had applied for
security clearances.
NEW DEFENSES BREACHED
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Katherine Archuleta rubs her eyes, as she testifies …
Archuleta said the two breaches were discovered
and contained because of new security measures taken in the last year.
The attacks occurred before the measures were fully implemented.
"I
want to emphasize that cyber security issues that the Government is
facing is a problem that has been decades in the making, due to a lack
of investment in federal IT systems and a lack of efforts in both the
public and private sectors to secure our internet infrastructure," she
said.
Archuleta, who was appointed to head the
agency two years ago, said 4.2 million employees were affected by the
first OPM hack. Even more had been affected in the other attack, she
said, but would not provide an estimate.
She also declined, despite repeated questions, to say how many years' records had been compromised.
The
committee's top Democrat, Elijah Cummings, said he was concerned about
how many people were affected, what the government was doing to help
them and what foreign governments could do with their information.
A lock icon, signifying an encrypted Internet connection, is seen on an Internet Explorer browser.
But he said details of the investigation should
not be made public: "A lot of the information about the attack is
classified and the last thing we want to do is give our enemies
information."
Archuleta, OPM Chief Information
Officer Donna Seymour, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and other
administration officials held a classified briefing on the cyber
attacks for lawmakers later on Tuesday.
Suggestions
of Chinese involvement could further strain ties between Washington and
Beijing, which are holding an annual "Strategic and Economic Dialogue"
in Washington next week involving senior government officials.
Lawmakers
expressed frustration at the refusal of Archuleta and other
administration officials at the hearing to answer many questions,
frequently justifying their silence by saying they could not discuss
classified information.
"I
am gonna know less coming out of this hearing than I knew coming in,"
said Democratic Representative Stephen Lynch. "You're doing a great job
stonewalling us, but hackers, not so much."
(Editing by David Storey, Lisa Shumaker and Grant McCool)
Nancy Pelosi and James Clyburn with President
Obama as he visits Capitol Hill to make an 11th-hour appeal for
fast-track authority. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
The rebellion of House Democrats that blocked the president’s trade
deal with Asia is more than political humiliation for Barack Obama. It
is the start of something far bigger—the revival of the Democratic Party
as a born-again advocate for working people and economic justice.
The congressional defeat shocked Washington, where the cynical rule
is “to get along, you go along.” Even though the Obama-Boehner-McConnell
forces are attempting to resuscitate the “fast track” gimmick, the TPP
fiasco will be remembered as a fundamental turn in the road.
After 25 years of losing out to Wall Street and corporate interests,
the party’s faithful constituency base managed to take down their
Democratic president and his sweetheart deal with the big money. The
left-liberal policy groups and grassroots activists agitating for change
stood their ground against the power elites and, for once, they
triumphed.
This may be premature, but I suggest the fast-changing dynamics may
be springtime for the New New Democrats on the party’s left. Led by
organized labor and AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka, this informal
coalition includes environmentalists, social-justice advocates, people
of color, defenders of civil liberties, small businesses, and others who
are also regularly ignored or injured by the party’s dominant power
brokers.
Disregard for the party faithful began with Bill Clinton back in
1992. Labor was edged aside. Wall Street replaced it as the senior
managing partner of the Democratic coalition. Clinton ran on “Putting
People First,” but he governed according to the needs of big business
and finance. His permissive policies on so-called “free-trade”
globalization were especially damaging to American workers and
middle-class prosperity.
Barack Obama comfortably embraced that relationship with Wall Street
and relied on its best thinkers for investor-friendly economic policy.
He did nothing much to reverse the damage caused by the sector, but
instead has proposed more concessions to the needs of finance capital.
Lots of people in the party warned Obama that he was heading into a
buzz saw with his Trans-Pacific Partnership. He ignored them. Even
worse, he got a little nasty with those resisting his proposal—leading
voices like Senator Elizabeth Warren. Surrounded by advisers from
Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, he scolded labor leaders for fighting the
last war.
Whether in ignorance or arrogance, the president didn’t seem to
realize that his smooth reassurances were actually inflaming grassroots
anger. People knew what happened to them when their factories were
closed and the jobs moved to low-wage workers abroad. And people have
not forgotten the role of the Democratic party in messing up their
lives. TPP looked to some like an opportunity for payback.
When members of Congress tried to explain this to him, Obama
responded by personalizing the political question. I am your president. A
vote for TPP is a vote for me. Stick to the regular order of things, he
told them. The dismissive put-down simply deepened the anger. Forced to
choose between him and their angry constituents, they chose not him.
A different sort of political leader might swallow pride and start a
serious conversation with his opponents. Is there a deal to be made that
would cut out some of the more odious corporate plums in the TPP in
order to get something that labor-liberal critics might accept? Labor
officials are ready to talk, but rather doubt Obama will pursue the
chance.
In that event, the same choice will fall to Hillary Clinton. She is,
of course, grounded in the Clinton wing of the party and aligned with
the same powerful interests as her husband. But her prospects as
Democratic candidate for president are now directly threatened by the
party’s growing divide. The monied interests remain in charge of the
party, and Clinton has tried not to choose sides. That doesn’t sound
like a strategy that can survive until November 2016.
Something even more profound may now be unfolding in politics. As the
Democratic rebellion makes clear, both parties are driven by severe
intramural divisions. On both left and right, the rank and file are fed
up with establishment leaders and eager to challenge them, even bring
them down.
On the Democratic left, the spirit of reform is resurgent. Both
politicians and freelance advocates are advancing strong new ideas for
confronting inequality and repairing the damage done to ordinary
Americans—and not only by the Republicans. The media usually portray
these ruptures as symptoms of dysfunctional politics. But these
intramural fights may actually be leading toward something far more
positive for the country.
What we may be witnessing are the initial stages in the gradual
breakdown of the imperial presidency. Since World War II, the presidency
steadily assumed greater powers in both war and peace, while Congress
generally surrendered its prerogatives and powers. The executive branch
is no longer held accountable for unconstitutional sins and egregious
policy disasters.
For two generations, both parties and both houses of Congress mostly
went along with this debasement of the governing order. Letting the
White House made the big decisions and take the blame if things go wrong
became the standard default.
However, the country has now reached a difficult passage where the
imperial decision-making no longer works for common good but pulls the
country into deeper quagmires. The nation goes to war on false premises
and can’t get out of fighting more wars. Government embraces
narrow-minded economic doctrines that make things worse for most people,
year after year, and yet deferential politicians seem afraid to
challenge the domination of smug elites.
We are in deeper trouble than either political party will acknowledge (it would sound unpatriotic).
If I am right about this, the country is facing a long and difficult
struggle as events compel the nation to retreat from some its most
arrogant and dangerous illusions. The politics will be chaotic, for
sure.
Established powers will feel threatened and try to derail these
popular rebellions.
Yet I can imagine this turmoil might be positive in the long
run—encouraging reforms that liberate the democratic order from backward
influences and persuade angry, anxious people to seek political power
and act again like citizens.
I've handed Chris Hayes a lot of grief on this site for interviews
where he gets filibustered by right-wing screechers, but he did it
exactly right on his show tonight.
Former Senator and Governor Judd Gregg was the guest. The topic was
the Affordable Care Act, and Judd Gregg was serving up the usual
nonsensical talking points in a particularly vitriolic way. From his
claim that the ACA was a mess that helped no one, to his mockery of
Hayes' claim that the ACA has gotten health coverage to millions, Gregg
was mean, nasty, and rude.
Hayes was having none of it, and he used that good old fashioned
fallback to debunk Gregg: Facts, with a touch of math for good measure.
Gregg scoffed at Hayes' use of the word "plummeted" to describe the
uninsured rate in this country. But in fact, it has plummeted.
— All In w/Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) June 16, 2015
I was taken aback by the nastiness and disrespect Gregg showed Chris
Hayes, but Hayes persisted in simply using facts and math to contradict
his claims.
Watch it, because a transcript won't do it justice.
Aside to Chris Hayes: This is one that your colleagues (particularly
Chuck Todd), should study to understand how to use facts to stop these
talking points dead in their tracks. It's what we expect from our
so-called liberal media, and you delivered.
The other thing you'll notice is that Gregg never answered the question.
Complex, challenging, and ambitious, video games have come
a long way since the simple arcade titles of the 1970's—and evidence is
mounting that the benefits of play go well beyond entertainment and
improved hand-eye coordination. Here are 15 ways games are programming
better people.
1. They’re Producing Better Surgeons.
While you may think you want your surgeon reading up on the latest
medical research instead of playing games, you might want to reconsider:
a study of laparoscopic (small incision) specialists found that those
who played for more than three hours per week made 32 percent fewer
errors during practice procedures compared to their non-gaming
counterparts.
2. They May Help People Overcome Dyslexia.
Some research points to attention difficulties as being a key
component of dyslexia. One study has shown dyslexics improved their
reading comprehension following sessions of games heavy on action. The
reason, researchers believe, is that the games have constantly changing
environments that require intense focus.
3. They Could Improve Your Vision.
“Don’t sit too close to the television” used to be a common parental
refrain without a lot of science to back it up. Instead, scientists are
discovering games in moderation may actually improve—not strain—your
vision. In one study, 10 weeks of play was associated with a greater
ability to discern between different shades of grey. Another had
participants try to play games using only their “lazy” eye, with the
“good” one obscured. Those players showed significant, sometimes
normalized improvement in the affected eye.
4. You Might Get a Career Boost.
Because certain genres of games reward and encourage leadership
traits—providing for “communities,” securing their safety,
etc.—researchers have noted that players can display a correlating
motivation in their real-world career goals. Improvising in a game can
also translate into being faster on your feet when an office crisis
crops up.
5. Players Can Become Fascinated with History.
Many games use actual historical events to drive their stories. Those
characters and places can then spark a child’s interest in discovering
more about the culture they’re immersed in, according to researchers.
Parents who have obtained books, maps, and other resources connected to
games have reported their children are more engaged with learning, which
can lead to a lifetime appreciation for history.
6. They Make Kids Physical.
While some games promote a whole-body level of interaction, even
those requiring a simple handheld controller can lead to physical
activity. Sports games that involve basketball, tennis, or even
skateboarding can lead to children practicing those same skills
outdoors.
7. They May Slow the Aging Process.
So-called “brain games” involving problem-solving, memory, and puzzle
components have been shown to have a positive benefit on older players.
In one study, just 10 hours of play led to increased cognitive
functioning in participants 50 and older—improvement that lasted for
several years.
8. They Help Ease Pain.
It’s common to try to distract ourselves from pain by paying
attention to something else or focusing on other body mechanisms, but
that’s not the only reason why games are a good post-injury
prescription. Playing can actually produce an analgesic (pain-killing)
response in our higher cortical systems. The more immersive, the
better—which is why pending virtual reality systems may one day be as
prevalent in hospitals as hand sanitizer.
9. You’ll Make New Social Connections.
Gamers are sometimes stigmatized as being too insulated, but the
opposite is actually true. The rise of multi-player experiences online
has given way to a new form of socializing in which players work
together to solve problems. But studies have shown games can also be the
catalyst for friends to gather in person: roughly 70 percent of all
players play with friends at least some of the time.
10. They May Improve Balance in MS Sufferers.
Since it is a disorder affecting multiple nerves, multiple sclerosis
patients often have problems with their balance—and no medications have
been conclusively proven to help. However, one study showed that MS
patients who played games requiring physical interaction while standing
on a balance board displayed improvement afterward.
11. You’ll Make Faster Decisions.
We all know someone who seems to have a faster CPU than the rest of
us, able to retrieve information or react in a split second. For some,
that ability might be strengthened through gaming. Because new
information is constantly being displayed during play, players are
forced to adapt quickly. In one study, players who were immersed in
fast-paced games were 25 percent faster in reacting to questions about
an image they had just seen compared to non-players.
12. They Might Curb Cravings.
Players preoccupied with indulging in overeating, smoking, or
drinking might be best served by reaching for a controller instead. A
university study revealed a 24 percent reduction in desire for their
vice of choice after playing a puzzle game.
13. They’ll Reduce Stress.
While some games are thought to induce stress—especially when you see
your character struck down for the umpteenth time—the opposite can be
true. A major study that tracked players over six months and measured
heart rate found that certain titles reduced the adrenaline response by
over 50 percent.
14. Gamers Might Be Less Likely to Bully.
Though the stance is controversial, some researchers have asserted
that action games may reduce a bully’s motivation to—well, bully. One
study that had players assume the role of both the hero and villain
showed that those controlling the bad guy’s behaviors displayed a
greater sense of remorse over their actions.
15. They Can Help Address Autism.
Gamers using systems that incorporate the entire body to control
onscreen movement have been shown to be more engaged in celebrating
victories with their peers, which runs counter to the lack of
communication people with autism sometimes present. A study also showed
that sharing space with multiple players can also lead to increased
social interaction for those with the disorder.
Never underestimate the power of right-wing eliminationist
talk, especially when the hearer is already angry at government
authorities and has lost custody of his only child.
James Boulware was an extremely angry man, as evidenced by postings
on social media. Not only was he angry about his child custody problems,
he was what we might term a "hater" on social media.
We've all seen
them. They're the ones who show up in the comments calling President
Obama a commie, or just making generally paranoid arguments about government, with Ron Paul's flavor of paranoia tossed in for good
measure.
Here's a posting he left on Facebook for the judge who decided his custody case.
He also had a Disqus account which was created in early May as well, which appears to have been created to attack one other commenter, for the most part.
In those comments, he claims he was a weapons engineer for the Army. The account appears to focus on one other person, who is no left wing type himself, sound mostly like this one:
Sraysr, I see that you have no life and sit at your
computer jacking off all day. Do you enjoy receiving your socialist
welfare check and living out of your trailer house. YOUR BLOOD SUCKING
LEACH!!!
And the themes of "government control" play in here too:
Texas is a horrible place to live!!! Too much government control!!! The C.P.S.S. (Also known as the Hitler youth Program) steals peoples kids with impunity. Jobs are scarce!!! The police and the F.B.I. are all part of the mafia!!! So if you want my advise, STAY AWAY!!!
His mother claims mental illness as the cause of his problems and
ultimate demise, but I'm less than convinced, given that court documents
indicate no medication or treatment of those, and he was able to
complete the Court's requirements to have the charges dropped for his
terrorist threats against churches and schools.
It
sounds more to me like the product of a never-ending drumbeat of
right-wing brainwashing combined with an angry man who didn't know how
to keep his hands off of people.
James Boulware is exactly the kind of man we all worry about when we
think about that one wing nut triggered by the violent rhetoric of NRA
trolls, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
He's the one we want to catch before he has assault weapons,
bomb-making materials, body armor and an armored vehicle, perhaps by
something as simple as a background check at a gun show, or before he
buys weapons on the Internet.
I have some more questions about him that I hope we can get answers
to. Where did he get the money to buy all of this gear? Why didn't
anyone find it odd that he was considering living in an armored vehicle,
when combined with his paranoia and anger at the courts? Why, with all
of the interaction he had with the court system, wasn't he identified as
someone in need of mental health intervention?
Was he really in the
Army at all, or was that just an invention?
We'll probably never know the answers to these questions, but I'm
sure we can expect Fox News to tell us that those police cars he shot at
"were no angels either," right?
Cyber-attacks
linked to China appear to have resulted in the theft of
security-clearance records with sensitive data about millions of
American military and intelligence personnel.
To truly understand just how rigorous and intrusive the process to get security clearance for the federal government is, take a look a Standard Form 86.
Formally known as the Questionnaire
for National Security Positions, the document requires that an
applicant disclose everything from mental illnesses, financial
interests, and bankruptcy issues to any brush with the law and
major or minor drug and alcohol use. The application also requires a
thorough listing of an applicant’s family members, associates, or former
roommates. At the bottom of each page, a potential employee must submit
his or her social security number. Given the questionnaire’s length,
that means if you’re filling out this document, you will write your
social security number over 115 times.
On Friday, it was revealed
that all of the data on Standard Form 86— filled out by millions of
current and former military and intelligence workers— is now believed to
be in the hands of Chinese hackers.
This not only means that the hackers may have troves of personal data about Americans with highly sensitive jobs, but also that contacts
or family members of American intelligence employees living abroad
could potentially be targeted for coercion. At its worst, this cyber breach also provides a basic roster of every American with a security clearance.
"That makes it very hard for any of those people to function as
an intelligence officer,” Joel Brenner, a former top U.S.
counterintelligence official, told the AP.
“The database also tells the Chinese an enormous amount of information
about almost everyone with a security clearance. That's a gold mine. It
helps you approach and recruit spies."
What’s particularly stunning about this development is how quickly it
grew into something so severe. Last week, officials estimated that the
personal data of 4 million current and former federal employees had been
compromised. Then that figure ballooned to as many as 14 million.
Speaking to The Washington Post, one official ominously likened this new revelation to cancer, “Once
you start operating on the cancer, you find it has spread to other
areas of the body.” The subtext here is that we may not have even hit
the apex of this scandal yet.
In the meantime, China continues to deny
that it stole the information and the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management isn’t saying much either. “Once we have conclusive
information about the breach, we will announce a notification plan for
individuals whose information is determined to have been compromised,”
said OPM spokesman Samuel Schumach.
Given the reach of the data thought to be stolen, it might be
easier for the OPM to contact those whose information hasn’t been
compromised.
CNN’s S.E. Cupp is getting really tired of conservatives taking Dr. Ben Carson seriously, saying he fails to sound believable both as a president and as a doctor.
The straw that broke the camel’s back for Cupp was Carson’s proposal this week
to create a covert division of government workers to spy on other
government workers. Because, as Cupp said, conservatives obviously love
nothing more than spying and increasing the size of government.
And between that and other comments Carson’s made, Cupp wants to know what outside of calling out the president to his face that one time actually appeals to conservatives so much that they would want him to run for president.
She told Brooke Baldwin Carson’s “embarrassing” and
she’s “annoyed at the oxygen he’s taking in” when more time could be
devoted to actually serious candidates.
Cupp said back in March conservatives need to get serious and ignore Carson already. A few polls have Carson ahead of candidates like Chris Christie and Rick Santorum.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum made a campaign stop in Iowa Monday and was greeted by just one voter.
Santorum
stopped at a Hamlin, Iowa restaurant at 2 PM where he was met
by Peggy Toft, an insurance agent and chair of the area's Republican
Party. Eventually four people ended up at Santorum's table.
Despite the
numbers, the candidate declared the day a success, "People don’t
understand. One guy in there said, ‘I’ll speak for you at the caucus,’”
Santorum said. “That’s maybe eight votes that you wouldn’t otherwise
get. Eight votes can make a big difference, as I know.”
Santorum
won the 2012 Caucus, beating the eventual nominee Mitt Romney by just 34
votes. He visited all 99 Iowa counties in 2011, which many identify as
the reason behind his success. "It's not glamorous, and you're not out
there raising money, but you're doing what the money is ultimately
supposed to do — getting votes," said Santorum, "This is a lot more fun
than being on the phone raising money."
Earlier in the day, he drew ten people at a nearby stop in Panora, Iowa.
Today Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
told Jeb Bush to go pound sand on social security. In no uncertain
terms Sanders reiterated his stance that "NO we will not cut Social
Security." This has been Sanders stance that payments from Social
Security should be increased by raising the FICA cap.
What that means is
that if you are making 118,000 dollars a year, you are paying into the
system at the same rate as a guy making 10,000,000 a year. It bears
repeating that Social Security is not in crisis and that merely raising
the FICA cap for individuals making 1,000,000 or even 250,000 a year
then the program that has lifted generations out of poverty in their old
age will be solvent for future generations.
I have a hard time understanding what world Gov. Bush and
his billionaire backers live in,” Bernie said after Jeb Bush told an
interviewer that he thought the Social Security retirement age should be
raised.
“We need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in (an increase
in the retirement age over an extended period of time),” said Bush,
“going from 65 to 68 or 70.” With those words, Bush seemed to suggest
that the current retirement age is 65. It is currently 66, and is
scheduled to rise to 67 for people born in 1959 and afterwards.
“It is unacceptable to ask construction workers, truck drivers,
nurses and other working-class Americans to work until they are 68 to 70
years old before qualifying for full Social Security benefits,” Bernie
said in response this week, adding:
“At a time when more than half of the American people have less than
$10,000 in savings, it would be a disaster to cut Social Security
benefits by raising the retirement age.”
“Jeb Bush’s plan to raise the retirement age is just a continuation
of the war that is being waged by the Republicans against working-class
Americans in order to reward billionaires on Wall Street,” Bernie said,
noting:
“When the average Social Security benefit is just $1,328 a month,
and more than one-third of our senior citizens rely on Social Security
for virtually all of their income, our job must be to expand benefits,
not cut them.”
So who else wants to deliver a House and Senate that will allow Senator
Bernie Sanders to raise social security payouts to seniors who live on
starvation wages? I do. Jeb Bush can go pound sand.
There was a very good discussion on ThisWeek that really should be heeded.
Supporters of Hillary Clinton are likely to be upset but instead must be warned
that she is definitely not a shoo-in.
"To me this is not a campaign problem," said Matthew Dowd. "This is a
candidate problem. If you take a look at the data on her over time, the place
where she drops is when she enters the national scene as a candidate. Every time
she enters the national scene as a candidate she falls in the polls.
That's just
what happened this year. If you just take a look at this. Ignore tactics. Ignore
all these things. Take a look at her numbers. And you look at her numbers and
you look at the dynamics of the country, where the country thinks we are off on
the wrong track, where the country wants a change in policy from Obama, and the
President's job approval is in the forties. All of those dynamics say she is
unelectable. Can she win? Yes. But she can only win if the Republicans nominate
an equally unelectable candidate or she disqualifies herself."
Matthew Dowd omitted causality. Her polls likely drop whenever she gets on
the national scene because that is when she is attacked from an effective GOP
misinformation machine. It is not hard to forget that in the early years of the
Obama administration when her poll numbers were high, she was being praised by
Republicans as a method to diss the President. Now that she is running there
attacks are directly against her. The polls reflect that.
That said, in the last several years the Clintons did very little to
inoculate themselves from the fire they knew would come if she ran for
president. While it is likely that everything they did is legal, their
methods may have left the door open for the false narrative being waged
against Hillary Clinton now. If the Republicans nominate a good
candidate and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Matthew Dowd is
absolutely correct.
The camo and calisthenics
in these photos may call to mind a military academy, but they actually
document a rehab center for internet addicts. China has more online
gamers—368 million—than the United States has people. Perhaps it's no
surprise then that Chinese parents, psychiatrists, and media often
describe wangyin, or internet addiction, as a clinical
disorder. Sometimes called "digital heroin," it is said to afflict 24
million young people.
This center in a Beijing suburb houses 70 such
patients, mostly boys, and is led by Tao Ran, a "tough love" former army
colonel. While controversial treatments have been blamed for deaths at
similar facilities, Tao claims his team's methods—which can include
brain scans and medication—have a 75 percent success rate. That's
welcome news for panicked mothers and fathers who, raised before China's
tech revolution, struggle to recognize the online lives of their
children, and for a government that fears gaming is yet another way for
the internet to corrupt young minds.
Tao Ran, a military doctor and researcher
who built his career treating heroin addicts, runs the Internet
Addiction Treatment Center. Among other tactics, the center deploys
military discipline, drugs, and psychotherapy.
Residents head outside at 6:30 to start the day with exercises and drills.
A resident is wired up for electroencephalogram scans to measure brain activity.
The center's program includes military style workouts.
The center's canteen.
Inside a dormitory. The center encourages
group activities, such as card games, to build socialization skills
weakened by solo screen time.
Residents look through books about internet disorders authored by the center's director.
Medication for residents.
Wang Tai, 18, stands by his bed at the center.
Xu Deyi lies in bed reading. What does
the 17-year-old think of the book, which was sent to him by his mother?
"It helps me to be aware of life, to realize the meaning of human
existence. It shows me a clear way to achieve myself and encourages me
to feel life every day."
ByWill Durst
Population scientists describe the Baby Boom generation as anybody
born between the years 1946 and 1964. Which means the youngest of the
Baby Boomers turned 50 last year, and the oldest will turn 70 next year,
which is just so wrong. We Boomers are the architects of the youth
culture. We invented young people for crum’s sakes. We’re the Pepsi
Generation... that had a minor fling with Coke.
But fear not. As
we evidenced throughout the entirety of our flower-powered history, this
autumn of our lives will be charged into with unwavering optimism, a
firm commitment to affect positive change and pockets full of drugs.
The
first item of business that needs to be put in order is the
nomenclature. Is it really necessary to refer to us as elderly seniors
winding down our golden years? We’re vintage. Classic. Enduring.
Seasoned. Steadfast. Resilient. Ripe. And accumulating ripagosity every
day.
But all you kids out there shouldn’t think that growing old
is all gloom and doom. No. No. No.
There’s an equal amount of marvelous
traveling hand in hand with the gruesome. Compare for yourself, the 10
major advantages and disadvantages of being an aging baby boomer.
The 10 Major Disadvantages to Being an Aging Baby Boomer:
1. Exorbitant cost of replacement parts.
2. Sex and drugs and rock and roll and now naps.
3. When acid flashbacks meet dementia. On Prozac.
4. Turns out that old adage was right: the good DO die young. Which explains why we’re still here.
5.
Your children are no longer reliable sources when it comes to tech
support and all the grandchildren have lost the ability to pick up a
phone.
6. Grandma’s field of butterflies tattoo is now a flock of pterodactyls.
7. Looking at Harold & Maude from Ruth Gordon’s point of view- not Bud Cort’s.
8. Rumors abound that despite the name, sexagenarians, alas, don’t really engage in a lot of sex.
9.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
expecting a different outcome, getting old means doing the same things
you always did, with constantly varying results.
10. No jet packs.
The 10 Major Advantages to Being an Aging Baby Boomer:
1. Fewer peers means less peer pressure and it diminishes every day.
2. The phrase: “lifetime supply” becomes a much more imaginable concept.
3. Always one ear hair so long and thick you can cut cheese with it.
4. No longer have to worry about being the fresh young thing in prison. Sweet.
5. Knees are better at predicting the weather than that guy on TV.
6. Just saying “irritable bowel syndrome” creeps young people out so much they go away.
7. Can always tell people the battery in your hearing aid is shorting out, even when you’re not wearing a hearing aid.
8. Totally lack the energy and often forget to keep lifelong grudges active.
9. The Rolling Stones can be heard in elevators.
10. Going to the bathroom 3 times a night turns out to be a highly effective means of home security.
Will Durst is an award-winning, nationally acclaimed political comic. Go to willdurst.com to find about more about his new CD, “Elect to Laugh,” as well as his one-man show “BoomerAging: From LSD to OMG."
George W. Bush is trending on the Internet for a surprising reason. A CNN/ORC Poll that
recently hit the Web yielded some good news for the embattled former
president: For the first time since the months after his reelection in
2004, more Americans have a favorable opinion of him (52 percent) than
an unfavorable one (43 percent).
Before Republican Twitter starts
popping its proverbial champagne corks, however, it would be wise of
Republicans to remember that most former presidents become more popular
in the years after their administrations have ended. Both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush were widely disliked when their presidencies ended but are held in much higher regard today.
More
important, though, there is the simple fact that a president’s legacy
is ultimately determined by whether Americans were better or worse off
after he left office. How does Bush measure up?
1) He failed on September 11
Few would disagree that the September 11
terrorist attacks were a defining moment of Bush’s presidency. As
president, his foremost responsibility was bringing the mastermind
behind those attacks—al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden—to justice.
Bush failed in this mission. Instead of prioritizing hunting bin Laden down in Pakistan, where he was suspected of hiding (and where Obamapromised to get him during the 2008 presidential election), Bush waged two costly and ineffective wars. The first was against Afghanistan, a nation that harbored bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists but was not formally governed by them, and the second against Iraq, a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with September 11.
By comparison, Bush’s presidency only managed to oversee the creation of fewer than 1.1 million jobs, by far the lowest of any president since Harry Truman, while income inequality expanded at staggering levels. The
top 10 percent of American earners pulled in almost half of total
wages, the most lopsided wealth distribution since 1917.
Although
the economic stagnation became apparent very early in his first term,
it didn’t turn into a full-fledged recession until the collapse of
America’s financial industry in 2008, after which unemployment shot up
from 6.2 percent in September (the month of the crash) to 7.7 percent
in January (the end of Bush’s presidency). This was an average increase
of 0.3% per month.
Considering that Bush’s policy of Wall Street deregulation
was largely responsible for the reckless practices of the “too big to
fail” banks that brought the economy to its knees, it’s fair to say that
this was one of the two most significant fiscal failures of his
administration.
The other, of course, was his squandering of the
Clinton budget surplus. When Clinton left office in January 2001, he
bequeathed America with a projected $1.9 trillion surplus. By the time Bush handed the economy off to Obama in 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected $1.2 trillion in debt, due largely to Bush’s $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy, as well as the additional trillions spent on the aforementioned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3) He eroded American civil liberties to an unprecedented degree
When Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) cast his vote against the USA PATRIOT Act—the only member of the Senate to do so—he explained his reasoning as follows:
In the play, A Man for All Seasons, Sir
Thomas More questions the bounder Roper whether he would level the
forest of English laws to punish the Devil. “What would you do?” More
asks, “Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” Roper
affirms, “I’d cut down every law in England to do that.”
To which More replies:
“And
when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where
would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted
thick with laws from coast to coast... and if you cut them down... d’you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
Feingold’s words proved quite prophetic. From torturing suspected terrorists in clear violation of the Geneva Convention to laying the groundwork for the NSA’s unprecedented domestic spying program, Bush’s
post-9/11 legislative initiatives ultimately threatened American
freedom more than Osama bin Laden’s schemes ever managed to do.
America's
surveillance age hasn’t made the world any safer from terrorism,
sacrificing your privacy for what’s proving to be nothing more an
endless war on America’s own people.
4) He bungled his response to Hurricane Katrina
Believe
it or not, it isn’t that difficult for a president to effectively
manage disaster relief after a hurricane: Lyndon Johnson famously mastered the aftermath of Hurricane Betsy in 1965, while Barack Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy was so effective that it was erroneously credited for his reelection in 2012.
By contrast, Bush utterly failed when Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on the Gulf Coast in 2005—a subsequent report by the House of Representatives found that his administration disregarded numerous warnings of the threat to New Orleans, did not execute emergency plans, and neglected to share information between different departments that could have saved lives.
5) When it came to one of the biggest civil rights issue of his time, he placed himself on the wrong side of history
When future historians look back at the early 21st century, there is little question that they will view the campaign for LGBT
equality as one of the major civil rights movements of the era. Yet not
only did Bush fail to advocate on behalf of the LGBT community (despite
his vice president having a lesbian daughter and his party being chaired by a closeted gay man, Ken Mehlman, during his second term), but he actively exploited
anti-gay bigotry during his reelection campaign in 2004. This was
particularly the case in states like Ohio, where its pull among
so-called “value voters” played a considerable role (alongside racially based voter suppression) in Bush’s winning that state—and with it, the general election.
None
of this means that George W. Bush is a bad human being, or even that he
set out to cause harm to the nation he professes to love. At the same
time, no bounce in his approval rating can eclipse the damage that he
did while in office. More Americans may like Bush than dislike him right
now, but when his legacy is ultimately appraised, the final verdict
will not be a kind one.
Matt Rozsa is a Ph.D. student in
history at Lehigh University, as well as a political columnist. His
editorials have been published on Salon, the Good Men Project, Mic,
MSNBC, and various college newspapers and blogs. Matt actively
encourages people to reach out to him at matt.rozsa@gmail.com.
Take Action: Keep Up the Pressure to Defeat Fast Track
