ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

ђорђе покидо

Озбиљни американци раде управо оно што ја вама говорим, али док ви дајете подршку црначким терористичко-расистичким бандитима који ликвидирају белце и мене проглашавате расистом, дотле озбиљни американци прелазе са речи на дела.

Чак 118.463 американаца је потписало петицију којом од Беле куће захтевају да покрет животи црнаца су важни стави на листу терористичких група на којој се налази и Исламска држава.
Власти морају да одговоре на ову иницијативу у законски прописаном року од 60 дана јер је документ потписало више од 100.000 људи.

Гувернер Тексаса Ден Патрик је одмах осудио убиства полицајаца и изјавио је да за покољ криви покрет животи црнаца су важни:
Та група је једини кривац за расни рат који изнутра разара САД!

Према томе, уздржите се од давања подршке расистичким црначким терористима и слушајте вокс попули а не нво жвакалице.

Izvini ko su ti "rasistički crnački teroristi"? Govoriš u množini, kao da je to neka grupa, a tu je samo jedan lik, Micah Johnson, kog nijedna od crnačkih organizacija nije htela jer je bio pomalo lud. Druga dva slučaja, iz marta i novembra 2009. imaju samo "crnačku" komponentu, ali ne ni "rasističku" ni "terorističku". Dakle, ko su ti "rasistički crnački teroristi"?

Мацо, црначки расистички терористи су они против којих је преко 100.000 поштених американаца потписало петицију.
Црни расисти крећу у расни рат а домаћи душебрижници мене, који упозоравам на ескалацију црног расизма, проглашавају расистом.
Очекујем да почне пљувачина по потписиницама петиције од стране симпатизера црначких расистичко-терористичких група.

Црнци се дижу на оружје.
Председник црначког покрета Нови црни пантери Хашим Нзинга најавио је да ће његова група на улицама и већим скуповима убудуће носити оружје како би се заштитила од полиције.
Он каже да је сада прави моменат за расну борбу.

Свако ко подржава Хашима Нзингу подржава и Хашима Тачија.
Терориста један, терориста други.

Hajde da sačekamo da ta organizacija počini bar jedan teroristički čin da bismo je nazvali terorističkom organizacijom. Za sada samo koriste govor mržnje koji je u Americi nešto manje regulisan nego ovde. Pošto ovi jesu crnci i jesu rasisti, ali još uvek nisu teroristi, ja za sada ne vidim nikakve rasističke crnačke teroriste.

Teksas je u građanskom ratu pripadao konfederaciji, pa nije ništa neobično što slične inicijative dolaze odande. Mene jedino čudi da to nije pokrenuo neko iz Virdžinije. Sram ih bilo!

Quote from: T2 on 15-07-2016, 02:33:52
преко 100.000 поштених американаца

kako mi da budemo sigurni u njihovo poštenje?

sa druge strane, u protestima koje organizuju Black Lives Matter (za koje si takođe negde izjavio da su teroristi, i da se peticija piše protiv njihovog delovanja) ima dosta belaca među učesnicima. pored toga, 34% belih amerikanaca smatra da će pokret imati efekta, odnosno da može da poboljša poziciju crnaca u Americi.

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/report-youll-never-guess-how-many-white-people-say-they-support-blacklivesmatter

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/

Gugl kaže da belih Amerikanaca ima 223,553,265, pa je 34% od toga 76,008,110 što je bitno više od 140,140...

procenat podrške je čak nešto veći, oko 40% belih amerikanaca na neki način podržava pokret.

Quote from: mac on 15-07-2016, 11:43:45
Hajde da sačekamo da ta organizacija počini bar jedan teroristički čin da bismo je nazvali terorističkom organizacijom. Za sada samo koriste govor mržnje koji je u Americi nešto manje regulisan nego ovde. Pošto ovi jesu crnci i jesu rasisti, ali još uvek nisu teroristi, ja za sada ne vidim nikakve rasističke crnačke teroriste.

Јел треба да чекамо да почну да отимају путничке авионе и да их претварају у камиказе са којима ће се закуцавати у нпр. Пентагон, па да ти и теби слични схватите да је реч о терористтима?
Да ли ти схваташ да бити терориста не подразумева искључиво извођење терористичких аката, већ бити терориста значи и планирати извођење терористичких аката?
Кад Хашим Нзинга изјави да је право време за расну борбу, онда је јасно да се тиме најављују нова расистичка убиства белаца и нови терористички акти напада на регуларну полицију (а ко да зна, можда и отмице путничких авиона).

Quote from: tomat on 15-07-2016, 14:53:02
procenat podrške je čak nešto veći, oko 40% belih amerikanaca na neki način podržava pokret.

Већ виђена стратеџик маркетинг пројекција која има за циљ да прикаже како је проценат подршке белих американаца црним расиситичким терористима порастао након расистичко-терористичких акција црних расиста у којима су ликвидирани бели американци.

Quote from: tomat on 15-07-2016, 13:48:39
kako mi da budemo sigurni u njihovo poštenje?

Свако ко се у сопственој земљи на било који начин бори против ескалирајућег тероризма се може сматрати поштеном особом.
Сећаш се оног: тероризам је болест - позовите доктора. 

Pa i BLM se bori protiv terora, terora policije.

Ne misliš li da je porast podrške BLM uzrokovan represivnim merama (čitaj ubistvima) crnaca od strane policije? Zašto ti je nemoguće da belci podržavaju jednak tretman crnaca i belaca?

Oklen crncima pare za stratedžik marketing? Nešto debelo ne štima s tom pričom.

Питаш се одакле им паре...
Ко се налази нпр. у врху светске музичке сцене?
Нема богатих црнаца спремних да финансирају њихову ствар?

Nema. Bogati crnci su se obogatili od belačkih para. Niko nije lud da digne ruku na svoju zlatnu koku.

Паре људе кваре...

QuoteAMERIČKI MEDIJI OTKRILI DUGO PLANIRANU ZAVERU: Soroš gura Amerikance u rasni rat!

Fondacija američkog milijardera "Otvoreno društvo" daje novac grupi "Životi crnaca su važni". Ta organizacija predvodi proteste širom SAD, koji prete da prerastu u krvavi građanski sukob

Američki milijarder Džordž Soroš, poznat po finansiranju obojenih revolucija po svetu, izaziva rasni rat u SAD, tvrde mediji u SAD. Kako navode, njegova organizacija "Otvoreno društvo" finansira grupu "Životi crnaca su važni" (Black Lives Matter), koja predvodi proteste širom Amerike, a koji prete da prerastu u pravi građanski sukob.
Cilj da prave haos

33 miliona dolara jedne godine je Soroš uplatio pokretu "Životi crnaca su važni" i drugim grupama

Novinar i istoričar Bil Orajli sa TV Foks podseća da su organizaciju "Životi crnaca su važni "2013. osnovale tri žene Patris Kalros, Ališa Garza i Opal Tometi, a sve tri su radile za neku od organizacija koje je finansiralo Soroševo "Otvoreno društvo". Novinar Foksa pretpostavlja da su na taj način i dobile pare od milijardera za svoju grupu.

- Nije tajna da Soroš finansira razne grupe po svetu koje izvode revolucije. Međutim, to radi i u Americi. Govorimo o stotinama hiljada dolara godišnje, koje on daje za razne organizacije. Jedne godine Džordž Soroš je tim organizacijama u SAD uplatio čak 33 miliona dolara - navodi Orajli.

U prilog tome idu navodi lista "Politiko". On otkriva da su se predstavnici grupe "Životi crnaca su važni" prošlog novembra tajno sastali sa organizacijom "Demokratska alijansa" (DA), koju čini krug izabranih bogatih ljudi. Osnivač te grupe je Rob Stein, bivši zvaničnik u administraciji Bila Klintona, zadužen za finansije, a jedan od članova i finansijera je, između ostalih, Džordž Soroš.

- Demokratska alijansa je preporučila svojim donatorima da ispišu čekove organizacijama koje podržavaju grupu "Životi crnaca su važni". To je posredno finansiranje grupe koja pravi haos u zemlji - piše "Politiko".

http://www.informer.rs/vesti/svet/81217/AMERICKI-MEDIJI-OTKRILI-DUGO-PLANIRANU-ZAVERU-Soros-gura-Amerikance-rasni

Šta sad, i belci i crnci hoće građanski rat? Ako sve strane hoće, kako to da rata nema? Ako ja hoću da se bijem s tobom, i ti hoćeš da se biješ sa mnom, onda ćemo lako to ostvariti. A uzgred, zašto bi iko hteo građanski rat? Gde je tu logika?

Treba verovati Informeru 

Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'

Quote
Millennials are set to become the first generation to earn less than their predecessors, new research suggests.
The Resolution Foundation found that under-35s earned £8,000 less in their twenties than Generation X workers.
The thinktank defines Generation X as those born between 1966 and 1980 and millennials as those born between 1980 and 2000.
If wages for millennials follow the same path as Generation X, average career earnings will be about £825,000.
That would make them the first generation to earn less than their predecessors over the course of their working lives.
Even if millennials' wages improved rapidly like those of their baby boomer parents born after World War Two, their lifetime earnings would be about £890,000, according to the foundation.
That sum would be just 7% more than Generation X, and only a third of the size of the pay progress that Generation X should enjoy over the baby boomers.
The Resolution Foundation also warned that a post-Brexit recession could cut millennials' earnings even further.
Its research found that some of the pay squeeze was due to under-35s entering the job market as the recession hit, but it also concluded that generational pay progress had ground to a halt even before the financial crisis struck in 2007/8.Complacency riskTorsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, said: "We've taken it for granted that each generation will do much better than the last - earning more and enjoying a higher standard of living. But that approach risks looking complacent given the realities of recent years and prospects for the future."
The research comes as Prime Minister Theresa May warned last week of a growing divide between a "more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation".
The think tank has launched a commission to explore growing inequality between generations.
It will be launched at an event in London on Monday attended by David Willetts, executive chairman of the Resolution Foundation, TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady and CBI director-general Carolyn Fairbairn.
The think-tank also found that millennials will have spent £44,000 more on rent by the time they reach 30 compared to the baby boomers, and £25,000 more than Generation X.
Extra spending on rent has reduced young people's living standards and made it harder for them to save for a deposit to buy a house, the foundation said.
Senior policy analyst Laura Gardiner said: "Britain's continuing failure to build enough homes means that unless we change course the struggle of young people to own their home is only going to get worse."
Halifax estimated that the average first-time buyer deposit in the UK was now £33,000.

Tragikomedija. Pre par dana beše vest da je policajac u Majamiju upucao (srećom, ne i ubio) afroameričkog muškarca koji se na ulici starao o autističnom mladiću. Beše i video, koji možete i da vidite u dnu stranice koju ću linkovati. Čovek je potpuno nenaoružan i objašnjava policiji da je pružalac nege, moleći ih da ne pucaju. Policijski sindikat Majamija je nekoliko dana razmišljao šta da kaže i sad su smislili, pa se obratili javnosti. Naime, policajac je zapravo ciljao da upuca drugog muškarca, belog autističnog mladića koji je sedeo na ulici i igrao se kamionom-igračkom, jer je mislio da je kamion-igračka pištolj i da je život njegovog negovatelja ugrožen. Ali je promašio. Onda su policajci prišli ranjenom crnom muškarcu - koga tvrde da su hteli da zaštite - i stavili mu lisice, ne pružajući mu prvu pomoć.

A, onda je valjda okej. Drago mi je da je nesporazum raščićen 


   Miami police union president: Cop fired weapon to protect unarmed black man, but missed 

Quote
The North Miami police officer who shot an unarmed black man earlier this week was actually aiming for the autistic man in his care, according to the local police union's leader.
John Rivera, president of Dade County Police Benevolent Association, said the officers on the scene thought the autistic man's toy was a gun and that he intended to harm Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist at a nearby assisted-living home.
"Many officers thought the white male had a firearm. Only much later when we're able to Monday-morning quarterback do we find out that it's a toy," Rivera said at a press conference Thursday. "Only much later do we find out that the individual was autistic. The officers on the scene did not know that."
The cop took aim at the autistic man on Monday because he thought Kinsey's life was in danger, but missed and accidentally struck the caretaker instead, he said.
A video showing Kinsey, 47, lying on the ground with his hands in the air explaining the situation to the officers sparked immediate backlash after it was released Wednesday. Supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement and many others were outraged that Kinsey was shot even though he was complying with the officer's demands.
Rivera said whoever recorded the video was much closer to the mental-health care worker than the cops and could therefore hear what he was saying much better.
"Folks, being a police officer has always been difficult and lately it's been more difficult, more challenging. Sometimes police officers do wrong and we let the system work," he said. "And sometimes police officers are right and we still crucify them. And sometimes police officers make mistakes because at the end of the day, they're not computers, they're not robots, they are God's creation."
The North Miami Police Department said the officers were responding to a 911 call from a man who was threatening to commit suicide with a gun.
According to Rivera, the incident should not be viewed through the lens of the heightened tension surrounding law enforcement and African-American communities this summer. Distrust of police officers grew throughout the nation this month after officers shot and killed Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul, Minn.
Rivera argued that the North Miami incident is unlike the other ones because this time the cop thought of Kinsey as a possible victim worthy of protection — not the suspect.
"This really is a simple yet tragic case," he said. "You had a bunch of officers doing their job, responding, helping the public. And one officer, like many others, thought that Mr. Kinsey's life was in danger. He tried to do something about it."
Rivera repeatedly pleaded for the news media and politicians to share the facts without editorializing the event into something it is not. He accused the media of sensationalizing the story.
He also read a statement written by the officer who shot Kinsey: "I took this job to save lives and help people. I did what I had to do in a split second to accomplish that and hate to hear others paint me as something I am not."
But Hilton Napoleon, the attorney for Kinsey, was not buying Rivera's version of events.
"I don't understand if he's aiming at the autistic kid, how he could miss," Napoleon said to the Miami Herald. "He had plenty of time to tell my client to move."
He also questioned why the officers would handcuff Kinsey after he was shot and bleeding from the leg if they were in fact looking out for his safety.
"They handcuffed him after he got shot," Napoleon said.

Quote from: mac on 16-07-2016, 23:24:45
A uzgred, zašto bi iko hteo građanski rat? Gde je tu logika?

Јел имао логику братоубилачки рат међу Србима 1941-1945?
Јел имао тај рат било какве логике?

И ти она тражиш логику за почетак рата у расно мешаној средини, иако имамо прилив новца од стране сороша и других као помоћ црним расистима.
Сетимо се како су сорош и њему слични помагали шиптарске терористе и издајнички нво сектор.

Како Руси гледају на америку.
http://srbinaokup.info/?p=74009

QuoteАМЕРИЧКА ХЕГЕМОНИЈА – ЗМАЈ ЈЕ РАЊЕН

Пише Александр Дугин

Толико смо тога рекли о Трампу да су Демократе и неоконзервативни демони из Националног интереса чак покушали да искористе моје позитивне коментаре о њему и симпатије Мскве према овом кандидату, како би га дискредитовали. Али, једноставно нису у стању да избаце Трампа, јер очигледно води у овој трци.

О, какви ли су то остаци демократије у Сјеињеним државама! Али сада не бих толико о Трампу – о њему мало касније – сада бих о Сједињеним држава.

Шта данас раде Сједињене државе и које је њихове место у савременом свету? Ово није само реторичко питање. Видимо и даље осећамо Американце и њихову глобалну мрежу, а и даље се мешају у унутрашње послове њихових савезника, неутралних земаља, па чак и у послове њихових непријатеља.

Пре неколико дана су буквално покушали да изведу војни пуч у Турској и изазову немире у Јерменији и Казахстану. Али, постаје јасно да су све слабији и слабији. Башингтон је пробао да спречи Брегзит, али без успеха. Гиленистичка побуда у Турској се, такође, завршила неуспехом. Дакле, да ли бисмо могли недвосмислено рећи да је са униполарним светом готово и да сада живимо у новом, пост-америчком свету?
Мислим да би такав оптимизам био преурањен. Још увек не можемо отписати Вашингтон.

Крај америчког света је процес и трајаће. И вероватно ће се развући. Тешко је рећи колико, али је процес распадања униполарног света опасан период. Ово што се сада дешава са Сједињеним државама, назвао био "рањени змај". И, та метафора описује много, готово све.

После укидања Совјетског савеза и Источног блока, појавио се модел униполарног света у коме је амерички змај достигао врхунац своје моћи. Мреже америчких агената који утичу на догађаје, најчешће у облику либералне идеологије, али и користећи мимикрију и локалне политичке и идеолошке трендове, прожимају готово све државе. Змај се ушуњао у политичке елите, велике бизнисе, образовање, медије и неке безбедносне кругове у европским и азијским државама.

У Русији су проамеричке снаге готово отворено доминирале деведесетих и тек после 2000.године је Путин почео да их гура у страну мало по мало. Ове мреже су се рашириле по исламским државама где су њихова војна крила постајала радиклано исламистичка и праве слуге америчког змаја.

Али је змај добио ударац, и серију удараца, по свему судећи фаталне ударце и то на врхунцу своје моћи. Све земље које се пре деведесетих нису клањале америчкој хегемонији и које нису потпуно прихватиле униполарни модел као незаменљив полако су почеле да стварају неформални клуб за отпор змају. Кина је веома опрезно играла на овој линији, покушавајући да јаше тигра и да спроведе модернизацију и либерализацију, али да истовремено сачува, или чак да ојача национални суверенитет.

Почетком двехиљадитих, Русија је почела да следи овај пут. Иран је заузео сличну позицију. Контемплативна Индија је покушала да избегне непосредан амерички диктат. Опозиција је почела да се ствара међу следбеницима змаја у ЕУ; Турској и чак межу проамеричким салафистичким екстремистима. Најважнији задатак је да Американци, који су добили историјску шансу да управљају светом, једноставно нису у стању да то и учине. Можда немају довољно историјског, имеријалног искуства, памети или ресурса. Хегемонија се прегрејала. И тада је змај рањен.

Данас је пред нама глобално рањено чудовиште. Сједињене државе су још увек јаке и њихова мрежа још увек ради. Либерали, исламски екстремисти. Атлантисти, скривени агенти утицај су и даље јаки у многим друштвима. Али, врхунац америчке доминације је за нама.

Чињеница да је змај рањен је постала јасна још двехиљадитих када су Сједињене државе престале да се баве увођењем реда, већ им је контролисани, крвави хаос постао једини циљ. Обојене револуције, пучеви. Преврати, западне трупе у инвазији Блиског истока и пост-совјетског простора су докази.

Суштина свега овога је да је змај рањен. И даље је јак, а појавни облик његове моћи показује да и даље има циљ. Али, у стварности, он је побеснео од бола који му задаје пропаст његове моћи. Стога Сједињене државе почињу да се понашају тако непримерено у многим случајевима.

Нападају сопствене слуге, уништавају оно што се може сачувати, а болно и несразмерно реагују на ситне напад. То је крајње опасно. Рањени змај има нуклеарно оружје и сва његова велика моћ може једним малим бљувањем ватре послати читаво човечанство у провалију.

Sve revolucije su pomalo bratoubilačke. Vođeni tom logikom možemo doći do zaključka da ni Francuska revolucija nije bila logična. A to ne može biti ispravan zaključak, zar ne? Bratoubijanje je u posebnim uslovima neophodna cena, i nije nešto što se mora izbeći po svaku cenu. Nije dovoljno samo da živimo. Nekad za nešto mora i da se mre.


To je što se tiče revolucije u tadašnjoj Jugoslaviji, a ovo što se dešava u SAD je druga priča. Ne postoji razlog da se mre. Potencijalni učesnici revolucije nemaju razloga da učestvuju u toj revoluciji. Navodni inicijatori revolucije nemaju razloga da iniciraju revoluciju. Gde je motiv? Zašto bi Soroš dao pare koje ne mogu da mu se vrate?

Нема више револуција, све револуције су потрошене, оно што је преостало су религијски и расни ратови.

U redu, ali spominješ Soroša. Koji je njegovi interes da sukobi crnce s belcima u Americi? Šta on dobija time? Kad je (ili ako je, nemam dokaza) pokretao plišane revolucije interes je bio spoljno-politički. Ta dešavanja je pokretala zapravo CIA, a Soroš je samo paravan koji izdaje čekove. Zašto bi dakle CIA podstrekivala rasni oružani sukob u Americi, tim pre što je posao Cije da štiti SAD od drugih zemalja, a ne da se meša u to šta se dešava unutra. Za unutra je zadužen FBI.

Ali dobro, recimo da Soroš radi i po nalogu FBI, ili neke pete organizacije unutar Amerike. Koji je motiv za tu organizaciju unutar Amerike da oslabi Ameriku jednim oružanim rasnim sukobom?

Оно што се буде дешавало у Америци - дешаваће се у целом свету, јер Америка је мултикулти мултирасно експериментално огледно поље.

Некима су очигледно циљеви хаос и деструкција из које ће произаћи ред.

Сорош, за кога год да ради,  није везан ни за Америку, ни за Европу, ни за Кину, ни за Африку.
Њима уопште није битно ко ће ослабити а ко ојачати, јер центри моћи могу да се премештају по потреби, циљ су непресталне тензије које ће прерасти у религијско-расни обрачун.

Имамо сукоб свих против ислама, и тиме је део о религијском сукобу готово испуњен.
Остаје да се испуни део о расном сукобу.

U redu, ali onda sledi pitanje od milion dolara: ako ti to znaš onda su velike šanse i da FBI za to zna. Ako uzmemo da FBI u celini ne želi rasne sukobe na svojoj teritoriji, i pretpostavljam da postoje i zakoni protiv toga, zašto onda FBI ne pronađe dokaze protiv Soroša i ne uhapsi ga? Zašto Amerika ćuti dok je neprijatelji čereče? Ako dokaza nema, bože moj, rešićemo, dokazi u ratu zapravo nisu ni neophodni, a ako razaranje dolazi spolja onda je u pitanju rat. U ratu mogu Soroša uza zid, i gotova stvar. Ali ni to ne biva. Zašto to?

Michael Jordan speaks out on police shootings: 'I can no longer stay silent'



For years, Michael Jordan has taken criticism from those who'd wished one of the most famous, visible, wealthy and powerful athletes in the world would use his considerable public profile and influence to speak out on social issues affecting the African American community. For years, the six-time NBA champion and basketball legend's legacy of on-court success has been counterbalanced by four non-quoted words — "Republicans buy sneakers, too" — often used to call Jordan onto the carpet for failing "to embrace the leverage he possessed as the nation's most iconic athlete across the 1990s."
Well, now, the Hall of Famer and Charlotte Hornets owner has chosen to speak.
In an essay for The Undefeated published Monday, the 53-year-old Jordan makes his voice heard in the wake of the recent unrest in the country following the police killing of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., the police killing of Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minn., the killing of five police officers by a lone gunman at an otherwise peaceful Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, the police shooting of North Miami behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey as he lay on his back with his hands thrust in the air trying to coax an autistic patient back into a mental health center, and all the protests and demonstrations that have followed.
With persistent issues of racism, violence against African Americans, police brutality and gun violence coming to the forefront for many NBA and WNBA players of late, Jordan decided that, "as a proud American, a father who lost his own dad in a senseless act of violence, and a black man [...] deeply troubled" by the deaths on both sides of the divide, the time was now for him to speak, and to act:

"I was raised by parents who taught me to love and respect people regardless of their race or background, so I am saddened and frustrated by the divisive rhetoric and racial tensions that seem to be getting worse as of late. I know this country is better than that, and I can no longer stay silent. We need to find solutions that ensure people of color receive fair and equal treatment AND that police officers — who put their lives on the line every day to protect us all — are respected and supported.

"Over the past three decades I have seen up close the dedication of the law enforcement officers who protect me and my family. I have the greatest respect for their sacrifice and service. I also recognize that for many people of color their experiences with law enforcement have been different than mine. I have decided to speak out in the hope that we can come together as Americans, and through peaceful dialogue and education, achieve constructive change.

"To support that effort, I am making contributions of $1 million each to two organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police's newly established Institute for Community-Police Relations and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. The Institute for Community-Police Relations' policy and oversight work is focused on building trust and promoting best practices in community policing. My donation to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the nation's oldest civil rights law organization, will support its ongoing work in support of reforms that will build trust and respect between communities and law enforcement. Although I know these contributions alone are not enough to solve the problem, I hope the resources will help both organizations make a positive difference."

Jordan's Monday statement comes four days after the NBA announced it was pulling the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte in opposition to House Bill 2, a law passed in March by North Carolina legislators and signed by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory that reversed a Charlotte city ordinance expanding rights and protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Jordan, who had previously said that he and the Hornets organization were "opposed to discrimination in any form," had made the decision to issue his statement and make his donations "about two weeks ago," but decided to delay them after learning the league would be relocating the All-Star Game because he "did not want his announcement to take away from the focus on the LGBT community," a spokesperson told The Undefeated:

Jordan's commitment to diversity, his spokeswoman said, has been long established. "But he's always been very private and personal about many of these things."

Of the decision to speak out and contribute his voice and money now, she said: "Michael was tired of just talking. He wanted to do something about the issue. This was very important to him."

In years past, Jordan has tended to wield influence in the social sphere as an extension of his business pursuits, as Scoop Jackson detailed for ESPN back in 2014 (hat-tip to Myles Brown):

In the comprehensive context of Jordan "not being black enough," people miss how over the years with his position in the Jordan Brand as CEO, the company is the only one inside of Nike that has had multiple African-American presidents. (Disclosure: I worked with Nike from 2001-05, but not with the Jordan brand.) Outside of Nike president Trevor Edwards, the execs at the Jordan Brand have always been the highest-ranking blacks in the parent company (Nike). This is something that Jordan's made sure of; something that is not happenstance or a mistake.

"Michael's willingness to hire, support and promote minority leaders throughout his business ventures has been remarkable," Larry Miller, president of the Jordan Brand said in defense of the perception that the depths of Jordan's contribution to "the struggle" goes no further than that of a glorified pitchman. "He has always been focused on creating successful and sustainable businesses and has empowered minority leaders, including myself, with the opportunity to grow and advance those businesses." [...]

"It is hard to believe that in 2014 there is only one African-American majority owner in all the major men's pro leagues," [said Dr. Richard Lapchick, director at The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.] The importance of Michael Jordan as a player is matched by his being the only owner. It is critical for minority youth to see that there are options to battling the long odds to become a pro athlete and that there are many opportunities to work in the world of sport as team presidents, general managers, COOs and, yes, even as owners. In the era of the Donald Sterling nightmare, the NBA and our society need Michael Jordan now more than ever and need other people of color to become owners in the near future."

And yet, as valuable and viable a means of contributing to progress as Jordan's economic leadership has been, this choice to speak about the need for "constructive change" will likely generate far more attention and dialogue ... and, perhaps, further action.
"We're at a critical moment in our country where people do need to step up," said Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, to The Undefeated. "It's important for people who have a profile of a Michael Jordan to step forward and identify this as a critical issue."

Millennials are obsessed with side hustles because they're all we've got

Quote
On weekends, Colleen teaches fitness classes. Mary builds websites. Luke sells vintage video games. Tony designs and 3D-prints custom Star Wars miniatures. I write for the internet.
Among my friends, and 20- and 30-somethings as a whole, the side hustle–the gig you work in addition to your day job–is so ubiquitous that, in April, Glamour Magazine posed the rueful question: "You don't freelance on the side... What kind of urban-dwelling Millennial are you?" Failing to participate in the trend might even lead one to a "Millennial identity crisis."
Advertisers, including those you might not think of as in the vanguard, have glommed on, too. This Chevy ad suggests owning a Cruze is a way to "#FuelYourHustle." It's a two minute long rallying cry to being your own boss. Sure, there's no explicit mention of using your shiny new car as an Uber. But if you're under 35, you can probably hear that dog whistle.
I'm not objecting. It's a relief to see facts leading marketing, rather than the other way around. We are Generation 1099. By our side hustles, ye shall know us. What surprises me is that no one, at least to my knowledge, has tried to explain why.

Maybe that's because many people assume the side hustle is just financially oriented, simply another adaptive response to recession-era economics. Google "side hustle" and you will find thousands of stories, but they are all focused on the how. As in, Dear internet, how can I make another $200 a month to cover my Verizon bill?

Extra cash is far from the whole story. It's true, the 2008 crisis forced plenty of people to look for additional sources of income, not least of all the recent graduates who, with little experience and limited networks, were confronting the job market for the first time. But the desire to earn more money on the side predates the crisis (as does the Urban Dictionary definition of "side hustle"). Millennials didn't invent the second job, they just branded it.
Here's an example. Those friends of mine whose jobs are the most squarely aimed at the public good–teachers, local-government workers, a college buddy who works for a beloved and worthy nonprofit–they all tell me their side hustles are about survival, about being able to afford to live. Or just to eat at a restaurant once in a while. None would claim these jobs paid well before the recession.
And that's to say nothing of those who don't have access to college education, those who can't find day jobs at all, and those for whom, by choice or not, a 1099 is all there is.
The sheer range of side hustles suggests there's more in play than money. There are the well known app-based gigs, like Uber and TaskRabbit. You've got the day job with a freelance extension–the full-time graphic designer who also has her own clients. Then there's what you might ungenerously call the side hustle as self-promotion, which covers some yoga teachers and life coaches, though by no means all. Next along the line is the side hustle as self-delusion, i.e. spending years on some (doomed) artistic effort that will make the world care and understand, at last!
If that sounds harsh, well, I should know. Last year, writing for the internet earned me a grand total of $415 before taxes, or about the price of two hotel nights on the outskirts of Manhattan or San Francisco. To say I'm not in it for the money would be understatement. Not because I'm above such earthly considerations. There's just very little money in it to be for.

In fact, given all the hours I've devoted to it, there's no question in my mind that I've lost more than I've made, if only in terms of my Starbucks spend. But I'm not complaining.

The side hustle offers something worth much more than money: A hedge against feeling stuck and dull and cheated by life. This psychological benefit is the real reason for the Millennial obsession, I'd argue, and why you might want to consider finding your own side hustle, no matter how old you are.
Now, you might wonder, what would a bunch of twenty-five year olds know about feeling stuck and dull? Put another way, what happens when a generation raised with a "you can be whatever you want to be" ethos meets the worst job market in years? In which many of the traditional dream careers–from working in the arts to becoming a lawyer–go from being long shots to being totally untenable, or more or less cease to exist altogether?
For me, the biggest laugh in Amy Schumer's Trainwreck was the notion that, in an ostensible 2014-2015, her character has a "great job" as a staff writer at a (print!) men's magazine–a job so lucrative she can afford a "sick apartment" and also help to underwrite her father's nursing-home costs. Romcoms, even when written by a progressive, typically on-point comic like Schumer, aren't intended to be realistic portrayals. Still, the detail struck me as less fanciful than simply uncanny, more appropriate to a Buñuel film with explicit surrealist intentions.
Much closer to the mark was how, in Lena Dunham's Girls, Marnie aspires to be an art curator until she is told, by a curator, that "curator as a job doesn't really exist anymore." I can relate. The person who encouraged me not to pursue a full-time journalism career was himself a career journalist. We even attended the same journalism school 35 years apart. I'm speaking of my Dad.
Okay, so them's the breaks. Previous generations have also coped with such semi-tragedy; probably every human ever has been a sort of actor-waiter at some point. In any case, those of us who are employed generally understand ourselves to be lucky. Working as a benefits administrator, an ad-sales rep or even a Facebook engineer might not be the dream job. But your side hustle can keep you from feeling pigeonholed. It's the distraction from your disappointment, a bridge between crass realities and your compelling inner life.
In the best-case scenario, your side hustle can be like a lottery ticket, offering the possibility–however remote–that you just might hit the jackpot and discover that holy grail of gigs. The one that perfectly blends money and love. The one that's coming along any day now.

Highest-paid CEOs run worst-performing companies, research finds

Quote
The highest-paid CEOs tend to run some of the worst-performing companies, according to new research.
The study, carried out by corporate research firm MSCI, found that for every $100 (£76) invested in companies with the highest-paid CEOs would have grown to $265 (£202) over 10 years.
But the same amount invested in the companies with the lowest-paid CEOs would have grown to $367 (£279) over a decade.
Titled 'Are CEOs paid for performance? Evaluating the Effectiveness of Equity Incentives', the report looked at the salaries of 800 CEOs at 429 large and medium-sized US companies between 2005 and 2014 and compared it with the total shareholder return of the companies.


The report notes: "Equity incentive awards now comprise 70 per cent or more of total summary CEO pay in the United States, based on our calculations. Yet we found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance.


"In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns.
Recommending the focus shift away from annual reports to longer-term performance, it adds: "Closer scrutiny of the relationship between CEO pay and performance over longer time periods could lead to different conclusions."


Ric Marshall, a senior corporate governance researcher at MSCI, said in a statement: "The highest paid had the worst performance by a significant margin. It just argues for the equity portion of CEO pay to be more conservative."
"Whether you look at the entire group or adjust by market-cap and sector, you really get very similar results."

Na linku imaju i grafikoni...

Ovo je nešto kao Zeitgeist X: the Final Countdown. Narator mnogo najavljuje, a malo konkretno objašnjava, ali zato video maestralno gradi dramu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PqFYMZpBxw

https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.u5y5ufw1f

Lori Peni i Milo Janopulos


Milo Yiannopoulos is a charming devil and one of the worst people I know. I have seen the death of political discourse reflected in his designer sunglasses. It chills me. We met four years ago, before he was the self-styled "most fabulous supervillain on the internet," when he was just another floppy-haired right-wing pundit and we were guests on opposing sides of a panel show whose topic I don't remember and can't be bothered to look up. Afterwards we got hammered in the green room and ran around the BBC talking about boys. It was fun.

Since that day, there is absolutely nothing I have been able to say to Milo to persuade him that we are not friends. The more famous he gets off the back of extravagantly abusing women and minorities, the more I tell him I hate him and everything he stands for, the more he laughs and asks when we're drinking. I'm a radical queer feminist leftist writer burdened with actual principles. He thinks that's funny and invites me to his parties.

The key distinction, at this convention and among the petty demagogues here assembled, is between the attention hustlers—the pure troll howlers who play this grotesque game for its own sake and their own—and the true believers. Roosh is a true believer, and that puts him at a disadvantage.
Roosh means what he's saying, but he's still aware that he's playing a game — the same game almost everyone in this crucible of A-list internet con-men is playing. It's the game of turning raw rage into political currency, the unscrupulous whorebaggery of the troll gone pro. These are people who cashed in their limited principles to cheat at poker. Milo is the best player here. Like Trump, and like a lot of successful politicians in this postmodern circus, they channel their own narcissism to give voice to the wordless, formless rage of the people neoliberalism left behind. They offer new win conditions for the humiliated masses. Welcome to the scream room. There's a cheese plate

[...]


My new Spectator friend is as bewildered as I am by the way Americans take Milo and his ilk seriously, by their willingness to take pride in performative bigotry and call it strength. It works. It sells. It's the unholy marriage of that soulless debate culture that works so well in Britain, transplanted to a nation with no social safety net and half a billion guns. It works, in part, because of the essentially cult-like nature of U.S. culture and the structured ignorance that accompanies it. America is a nation eaten by its own myth. The entire idea of America is about believing impossible things. Nobody said those things had to be benign.

https://youtu.be/7vN_PEmeKb0

Ovo je ko suđenje Šekiju

A bit of cash can keep someone off the streets for 2 years or more 

Quote
If someone is about to become homeless, giving them a single cash infusion, averaging about $1000, may be enough to keep them off the streets for at least 2 years. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that programs that proactively assist those in need don't just help the victims—they may benefit society as a whole.
"I think this is a really important study, and it's really well done," says Beth Shinn, a community psychologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville who specializes in homelessness but was not involved in the work.
Homelessness isn't just bad for its sufferers—it shortens life span and hurts kids in school—it's a burden on everyone else. Previous studies have concluded that a single period of homelessness can cost taxpayers $20,000 or more, in the form of welfare, policing, health care, maintaining homeless shelters, and other expenses. To combat homelessness, philanthropic organizations have either tried to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place or help them regain housing after they are already destitute. But there aren't many data on whether giving cash to people on the brink of becoming homeless actually prevents them from living on the street.
So economist James Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, took advantage of a natural experiment. Funding for homelessness prevention programs is highly unpredictable, and thus many programs are often temporarily unable to give money to people about to lose their homes, even if they qualify for the assistance. That allowed him and his colleagues to compare the eventual fate of individuals and families who called into a homelessness prevention call center in Chicago, Illinois, when funds were available versus those who called when funds were not.
The programs work by giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill. Recipients need to be able to demonstrate consistent future income, and the amount given needs to actually cover their housing expenses for the month. The average amount paid out, according to Sullivan, is about $1000.
The team tracked the two groups for several months. Those who called when funding was available—and received the cash infusion—were 88% less likely to become homeless after 3 months and 76% less likely after 6 months, the researchers report today in Science. "We found no evidence that this effect fades away," Sullivan says. "There is evidence that it's a sustained impact up to 2 years later."
Although it might seem obvious that giving people money would keep them off the street, many antiwelfare critics have argued that such charity only prolongs the decline into homelessness. But that appears not to be the case, Sullivan says.
The researchers also found that targeting only the people who will actually go on to become homeless both increases the program's impact and reduces its cost. Many people in the study who qualified for the financial assistance but did not receive it because of lack of funds did not go on to actually become homeless—they found some other solution to pay their bills or were able to move in with friends and family. Determining who will or won't actually become homeless is a tricky business, but the data suggest that the poorest people—those furthest below the poverty line—are more at risk and thus receive the greatest benefit from the cash.
If programs can find a better way to target the most vulnerable people, Sullivan's research suggests they could save everyone money in the long run. The study found that, on average, it costs $10,300 overall to prevent a spell of homelessness when the costs of operating the call centers and maintaining the funding networks are included. But that figure can be reduced to $6800 by targeting very low-income families. This may seem high, especially considering only a fraction of that money goes directly to the person in need, but even its current state, that number is roughly only half the $20,000 that a period of homelessness may cost society.
Shinn says the study shows that these types of programs are absolutely effective and worthy of more consistent funding. And economics aside, there's a definite moral benefit to helping people staring down the real possibility of becoming homeless, says social scientist Dennis Culhane at the University of Pennsylvania. "These are generally very, very poor people for whom our safety net has been dramatically eroded over the last 30 years," he says.
Culhane says the programs can help prevent people from having to resort to prostitution and other dangerous behaviors to pay off debts from payday loans or other means of making ends meet. "These are not things that are easily quantifiable the way an economist would do it, but I don't lose sleep at night about the fact that a lot of very poor people are getting emergency cash assistance when facing a financial crisis—even if they wouldn't have become homeless without it."

Ako vam se čita nešto depresivno:

https://medium.com/@subes01/this-is-your-life-in-silicon-valley-933091235095#.ctgappybt

Ako vam se sluša nešto toliko poučno da je neumitno depresivno:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/whats-missing-from-journalism

 Jesse Ventura: The DEA has just been 'toying with us' on legalizing marijuana 

Quote
Last week, the DEA decided not to reschedule the classification of marijuana as a legal drug. According to federal drug codes, cannabis is still as deadly and addictive as heroin, with no known medical value. I was surprised to see how many articles were written about this decision without mentioning the obvious: This was going to happen. The DEA was just toying with us.
There were petitions that received enough signatures and then some senators wrote the DEA a letter, so the DEA had to give the matter "serious consideration." But as long as the DEA is in charge of both writing the law and enforcing it, they're going to keep things status quo, no matter what American taxpayers actually want.

There are all kinds of contradictions and misrepresentations about marijuana. Everyone says we need more research to determine the true medical value of marijuana, but that won't happen within the U.S. for a number of reasons. In the first place, the DEA is in charge of approving scientific research studies! Now, the DEA isn't an independent organization or a scientific organization — they are a law-enforcement organization — yet they are given the responsibility to be both judge and jury when it comes to what research studies can be done within the United States?

There are plenty of scientific studies that have proven the medical value of marijuana, but they're being done in countries like Spain and Israel — and get this: our federal government actually funds those studies. A prime example is Dr. Raphael Mechoulam of Israel. The U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) has provided Dr. Mechoulam with funding for cannabis research since the early 1960s, and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) gave him a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2011 for his research. So what does that tell you? Well, I've read his research and I can tell you this much: Although recreational marijuana is illegal in Israel, thanks to what Dr. Mechoulam has been able to prove, medical marijuana—not a pill, but the actual plant in smoked or edible form — is being prescribed in Israel for PTSD, epilepsy and rare seizure disorders, MS, Chrohn's, chronic pain, cancer, and even HIV.
Meanwhile, the majority of Americans with those same conditions don't have access to medical marijuana as a treatment approach, even though American taxpayer money went to fund Dr. Mechoulam's studies! It's not the NIDA or the NIH deciding the value of marijuana, it's the DEA, and clearly the organization is too biased. And why wouldn't they be? They naturally want to keep the war on drugs going strong — otherwise, they'd be out of a job.
See, it comes down to job security. Why on earth would they reverse their position on marijuana? That would mean for the past 45 years, they've been prosecuting American citizens unjustly, ruining lives, and for what? Nothing. Literally nothing. Imagine if the DEA did reclassify marijuana. Would everyone with a marijuana conviction then be able to sue the DEA? Would their sentences be commuted? Would we see amnesty for marijuana offenders?
The DEA has requested a budget of $2.1 million for 2017. That's a pretty significant budget considering public enemy number one — namely, marijuana — is now being grown legally in 25 states. I mean, come on, this is just getting ridiculous. But I guess that's the American way. We allow our federal government to spend trillions on ridiculous wars — the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, and the War on Drugs. If only there were a war on health care or a war on education or a war on infrastructure or a war on solar power. Imagine what we could accomplish!
So, how do we fight back on the DEA's War on Drugs?

There are 14 states with marijuana measures on the ballot for 2016. There are 25 states and Washington, DC that have legalized medical marijuana in some way.

If you want to rebuild our economy and really create new jobs, then we need a new industry. We don't need promises from presidential hopefuls; we in the private sector can do it on our own.

In 2015, Colorado earned more than $135 million in taxes and fees thanks to the marijuana industry. More than $35 million of that money will go toward school-construction projects. Washington state is projected to earn more than $270 million in taxes by the end of 2016. If you want to think about that on a national level, there are approximately 21,000 to 33,000 businesses in the U.S. that are tied to the marijuana industry, and that number will clearly increase if more states legalize it. How's that for rejuvenating the economy?

   We have to stop thinking that the federal government knows best because it doesn't. Over half the country wants marijuana to be legalized. Just to put that into perspective: We haven't seen that kind of universal agreement on who we want as the next president!

To me, that means it's time for the government to stop opposing marijuana because it's the government's job to carry out the will of the people. The people have clearly spoken. Scientific research, though conveniently ignored, has also spoken.

If the DEA won't step aside, we'll just have to make them obsolete. Imagine if every state legalized marijuana. That could very well happen within our lifetimes. See, right now, Americans aren't equal. Some Americans can grow marijuana in their back yards, and some Americans go to jail for doing the same thing. How long will we allow such hypocrisy to continue? Step one starts at the state level. Step one starts with showing the DEA that We the People are the boss.

Commentary by Jesse Ventura, the former governor of Minnesota and the author of "Jesse Ventura's Marijuana Manifesto" (Sept. 6 2016). He was a Navy SEAL and is a Vietnam veteran. He was also a professional wrestler from 1975 to 1986 under the ring name Jesse "The Body" Ventura. Follow him on Twitter @GovJVentura. 

Video: The real story behind the H-1B visa program

Quote
The vast majority of people who work in IT did everything right: They invested in their education, studied difficult subjects, kept their skills updated. They own homes, raise families and look to the future.
But no job is safe, no future entirely secure -- something IT workers know more than most. Given their role, they are most often the change agents, the people who deploy technologies and bring in automation that can turn workplaces upside down. To survive, they count on being smart, self-reliant and one step ahead.
Into that mix of dedication and hope comes the H-1B visa program. It allows a limited number of high-skilled foreign workers to work at U.S. companies. But over the years it has also become a way for companies to outsource jobs.
When a company decides to outsource IT jobs overseas, there is no protection for U.S. workers. Professional accomplishments are irrelevant. Degrees -- whether in computer science, mathematics, or in some field that has allowed them to figure technology out -- do not matter. The internal awards of merit, the five-star performance reviews are meaningless. The unpaid hours, at nights and on weekends, make no difference. The workplace turns cold, hostile, indifferent. Often, substantial numbers of IT workers leave. Sometimes entire departments are gone.   Here's how it usually unfolds: A U.S. company will bring in IT services contractors. These contractors, more often than not, bring in H-1B visa-holding workers. The replacement training begins with web conferences with workers overseas, then it shifts to the office. The system may seem insulting, such as when workers are prohibited from asking the contractors any questions. A foreign worker will sit in a cubicle and watch what the IT worker does, then they switch roles. What may have once been diverse IT department gradually becomes less so.
Over the years, I've interviewed scores of IT workers who trained their visa-holding replacements. Though details each time may differ, they all tell the same basic story.
There are many issues around high-skilled immigration, but to grasp the issue fully you need to understand how the H-1B program can affect American workers.

Nego, da vidimo kako stvari stoje u zemlji slobodnih, domu odvažnih:



How the US will end its 30-year history with private prisons

QuoteThe US government said this week that it would reduce and eventually cease its use of private prisons.
"[Private prisons] compare poorly to our own Bureau facilities," Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates wrote in a memo to US officials. "They simply do not provide the same level of correctional services, programs, and resources; they do not save substantially on costs ... they do not maintain the same level of safety and security."
According to David C Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, this memo represents a sea change in the attitude of the US government towards privatised corrections.
"This really is a historic reversal of the last 30 years," he says. "It's even more significant as a signal that's being sent and quite probably a harbinger of things to come."
However, while the announcement will have a significant impact on certain prisoners overseen by the federal government, this will change nothing for the vast majority of the US prison populace.
Here is a look at the immediate impact on the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and a glimpse of what may be to come.Which inmates does this announcement affect?Currently, the federal government contracts with 13 private facilities across the US, from California to North Carolina. These kinds of facilities are run by three for-profit companies: Corrections Corporation of America, Geo Group, and Management and Training Corporation.
All told, these private facilities hold about 22,660 inmates who will be affected by this announcement. That's a small percentage - 12% - of the total number of inmates currently incarcerated by the federal government.Which inmates are not affected by this announcement?

The number of inmates who will be affected by this decision is a miniscule portion of the overall prison population in the US, which is estimated at 2.2m. The vast majority of these men and women are held in state prisons, not federal ones, and so the change in policy has no effect on them.
In addition, while this marks the end of the Bureau of Prison's use of private companies, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement relies heavily on private facilities to hold immigrant detainees - an estimated 70% of its inmates are in private facilities, about 24,000 people in total. Those detainees are not affected by this week's announcement.
In fact, while the population of the federal prisons is contracting, the number of immigrant detainees held under Ice jurisdiction is growing. Just recently, Ice approved a new, $1bn contract with CCA for facilities to hold the growing number of Central American asylum seekers in Texas. All of those factors make it seem unlikely that the Department of Homeland Security has immediate plans to cease using private prisons.
"It would be a heavier lift for them," says Fathi.How will the federal government eliminate its use of private prisons?

As Yates noted in her announcement, the federal prison population has already shrunk over the last three years. This has freed up space to move inmates from private facilities back into government-owned facilities.
Nicole D Porter, director of advocacy for the Sentencing Project, says this is a direct result of changes made by President Barack Obama's Department of Justice.
"If steps hadn't been taken to reduce the scale of incarceration in federal prison there wouldn't have been the opportunity to phase out private prison contracts," she says. "This is all because of Obama's leadership and efforts."
There are fewer federal inmates entering at the front door thanks to former Attorney General Eric Holder's direction that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders should not be given automatic harsh, mandatory minimum sentences. And there are more leaving out of the back door, thanks to retroactive drug sentence reductions, which affected 46,000 inmates. The nation's historic low crime rate is also a factor.
"Assuming that the federal prison population continues to decline, then certainly it can be achieved ... Certainly within a ten-year period," says Martin Horn, distinguished lecturer in corrections at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Some of that reduction is already happening. The DOJ memo says that a contract for 10,000 beds has been reduced to 3,600 beds at facilities in Texas. In New Mexico, a contract for a 1,200 bed facility was simply not renewed. The memo estimates the number of federal inmates in private prisons will be cut by 50% by spring of 2017.Will the states soon follow suit?

State-level correctional facilities are a huge portion of the private prison companies' business. An estimated 94,000 inmates are housed in private prisons in the states.
New Mexico, Montana and Hawaii are among states that rely heavily on private prisons to hold their inmates. Some states do not use private prisons at all, including Illinois, Massachusetts and Nebraska.
Nevertheless, to end for-profit incarceration in the US, over half the states would have to change their current policies. Fathi says that state legislators may be swayed by the change in federal policy.
"The federal prison system has traditionally been looked to by the states as a leader in the field, as an exemplar of best practices," he says. "Once someone does it and the sky doesn't fall, and maybe some good things happen - saving money or a reduction in violence - then you see other systems coming along and following the model.
"I think that's what we're likely to see here."
Horn is more sceptical, saying that the concerns of the federal government do not always match up with those of the individual state legislatures.
"Most of the states that use private prisons are philosophically comfortable with it and are not going to be persuaded by this," he predicts.

Is this the end of private prison companies?No. Although the announcement from Yates caused CCA's stock price to plummet, Horn says these companies have already begun diversifying and moving into international markets.
He points out that MTC now runs most of London's probation system, under the name MTCNovo. CCA has a large real estate portfolio. Geo Group has moved into other areas of the corrections business by, for example, acquiring an electronic monitoring company in 2011.
Horn says he isn't even sure that the 13 prisons - once empty of federal inmates - will necessarily shut down.
"They may now turn to states and offer them more competitive pricing and it might make it more attractive to states to use these places," he says.
"Clearly they're going to try to find other customers for these facilities."

To je ohrabrujuće. Ali ovo sledeće... Hmmm...

Chicago's predictive policing tool just failed a major test

QuoteStruggling to reduce its high murder rate, the city of Chicago has become an incubator for experimental policing techniques. Community policing, stop and frisk, "interruption" tactics — the city has tried many strategies. Perhaps most controversial and promising has been the city's futuristic "heat list" — an algorithm-generated list identifying people most likely to be involved in a shooting.
The hope was that the list would allow police to provide social services to people in danger, while also preventing likely shooters from picking up a gun. But a new report from the RAND Corporation shows nothing of the sort has happened. Instead, it indicates that the list is, at best, not even as effective as a most wanted list. At worst, it unnecessarily targets people for police attention, creating a new form of profiling.It unnecessarily targets people for police attentionFunded through a $2 million grant from the National Institute of Justice, the list's algorithm identifies people by looking not only at arrests, but also whether someone is socially connected with a known shooter or shooting victim. The program also has a kind of pre-crime feature in which police visit people on the list before any crime has been committed.
One of the list's most promising aspects was that it wasn't just a police officer who would visit. Social workers would show up, too — employees of the Chicago Violence Reduction Strategy group at John Jay College. The list was designed to let Chicago police engage with at-risk (and potentially dangerous) citizens, but also to provide social services, such as access to counseling, to people who were in danger.
"We want to show them the carrot and the stick," said Christopher Mallette, executive director of the Chicago Violence Reduction Strategy group, in a conversation with The Verge last year. "We want them to know they can get help — but we also want them to know that if they don't keep in line, there's a jail cell waiting for them.""We want to show them the carrot and the stick." CPD wasn't shy about touting the importance of the list, later rebranded as the Strategic Subjects List, or SSL. In 2014, the CPD official in charge of the program, Commander Jonathan Lewin, told The Verge: "This will inform police departments around the country and around the world on how best to utilize predictive policing to solve problems. This is about saving lives."
But the study from RAND, which was granted extraordinary access to CPD when it launched the list in 2013, found that the program has saved no lives at all. The RAND researchers were allowed to view the list, sit in on internal meetings, and generally observe how the tool was being used. They discovered that CPD wasn't using the list as a way to provide social services; instead, CPD was using it as a way to target people for arrest.
"The individuals on the SSL were considered to be 'persons of interest' to the CPD," according to the report. "Overall ... there was no practical direction about what to do with individuals on the SSL, little executive or administrative attention paid to the pilot, and little to no follow-up with district commanders."CPD was using it as a way to target people for arrest.John S. Hollywood, one of the report's authors, explained to The Verge that there were as many as 11 different violence reduction initiatives going on within CPD at the time the list was being rolled out. "The list just got lost," he said.
It was no surprise, then, that when Hollywood and his colleagues compiled data to figure out whether the list changed the city's murder rate or reduced the likelihood that someone on the list might be involved in a shooting, they found it made no significant difference.
"[A]t-risk individuals were not more or less likely to become victims of a homicide or shooting as a result of the SSL, and this is further supported by city-level analysis finding no effect on the city homicide trend," according to the report.
Instead of being used to prevent violence, the list essentially served as a way to find suspects after the fact. "We do find, however, that SSL subjects were more likely to be arrested for a shooting," the report said.The list essentially served as a way to find suspects after the factCPD's Lewin declined to comment about the report, but CPD issued a press release in response. It stressed that RAND "evaluated a very early version" of the list, "which has since evolved greatly and has been fully integrated with the Department's management accountability process." It also points out that "the prediction model discussed in the report is the very early, initial model (Version 1), developed in August, 2012. We are now using Version 5, which is significantly improved."
Hollywood agreed that the list was in an early stage when it was evaluated, and that it's possible that it has improved. (CPD has agreed to allow RAND researchers to evaluate an updated version of the list, Hollywood said.)
The RAND report is significant, however, as a rare look at the effectiveness of a major predictive policing tool that was touted as the future of policing — and may instead be a failed experiment."Creating a data-driven 'most-wanted' list misses the value."Andrew G. Ferguson, a law professor and predictive policing expert at the University of the District of Columbia, summarized the problems identified in the RAND report.
"Just creating a data-driven 'most-wanted' list misses the value of big data prediction," Ferguson said in an email. "The ability to identify and proactively intervene in the lives of at risk youth is a positive, but you have to commit to the intervention piece."
"Just directing police toward those individuals for traditional policing is not enough," he said.

Govori Urdu, da te ceo svet razume..


Don't you have to speak English, some wonder, to drive a taxi here (in NYC)?


As of Friday, the answer is no.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/nyregion/new-york-taxi-drivers-english-exam.html?_r=0

To je zanimljivo.

sto se ubera tice, valjda komunikacija nije ni potrebna, zna adresu na koju treba da te odveze, unapred je placeno elektronskim putem, sto eliminise potrebu komunikacije. nedavno sam imala priliku da to i testiram, nije razmenjena nijedna rec.

inace, pre neki mesec sam putovala klasicnim taksijem, recimo samo da smo i ja i taksista bili izgubljeni u prevodu, bez mogucnosti komunikacije, ali sam bez obzira na to stigla gde treba.

e, sad, ipak su na engleskom govornom podrucju pa to malo nenormalno zvuci, morali bi da imaju bar neko bazicno znanje i razumevanje jezika, ne moraju biti sposobni da pricaju o umetnosti i filozofiji...

WTF!!!!!!

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/nation-world/ct-26-overdoses-in-just-hours-a-small-west-virginia-city-faces-its-demons-20160819-story.html

 One of the biggest crime waves in America isn't what you think it is

Quote
In dollar terms, what group of Americans steals the most from their fellow citizens each year?
The answer might surprise you: It's employers, many of whom are committing what's known as wage theft. It's not just about underpaying workers. They're not paying workers what they're legally owed for the labor they put in.
It takes different forms: not paying workers the federal, state, or local minimum wage; not paying them overtime; or just monkeying around with job titles to avoid regulations.
No one knows exactly how big a problem wage theft is, but in 2012 federal and state agencies recovered $933 million for victims of wage theft. By comparison, all the property taken in all the robberies of all types in 2012, solved or unsolved, amounted to a little under $341 million.
Remember, that $933 million is just the wage theft that's been addressed by authorities. The full scale of the problem is likely monumentally larger: Research suggests American workers are getting screwed out of $20 billion to $50 billion annually.
The most dramatic recent example occurred right on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. The Senate employs several hundred food service workers in its cafeterias through a private contractor. Last December, those workers successfully organized for a pay raise. But then the workers discovered the private contractor was demoting them into job titles but not changing their duties to get around federal regulations about how much government contractors need to compensate their employees. That kicked off a Labor Department probe, which found the contractors had been short-changing the workers in other ways since 2010. Now 674 employees will be getting over $1 million total in back pay, or about $1,500 per person.
Catherine Rampell pointed out that some of the Senate cafeteria workers were so poorly paid that they were homeless or on public assistance. The Americans who get hit hardest by wage theft tend to be the most vulnerable workers with the least power: low-paid, often in service work, often racial minorities or part of marginalized social groups.
Stories abound throughout the economy. A group of workers in Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, and Florida who are employed by the traveling carnival company North American Midway Entertainment are suing for wage theft going back to 2013. Working a carnival can regularly involve 12-hour days. But the workers' attorney estimated they'd sometimes been paid as little as $5 an hour, because their employer dodged overtime requirements and other rules. The Chicago Tribune reported that two employees of a Dunkin' Donuts franchise in Chicago sued in May for wage theft. This summer saw a record wage theft settlement when 18 car wash workers from New Jersey and New York were awarded $1.65 million for denied pay and emotional distress.
Unfortunately, precisely because these workers are so often the Americans who lack a voice and social clout, the wage theft that gets reported and dealt with is just a small slice of the problem.
An in-depth study in 2008 surveyed 4,387 workers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. The sample was meant to be representative of the 1.64 million low-wage workers in those three cities. The numbers are astounding. Twenty-six percent of the workers in their sample were paid less than the minimum wage, and two-thirds of those were stiffed by more than $1 an hour. Seventy-six percent were not paid for overtime they worked the previous week — 11 hours of it, on average. Two-thirds were denied legally required meal breaks, and half of those who were injured and tried to claim workers compensation were subjected to some form of illegal retaliation.
Some industries, like construction and education, had relatively low rates of wage theft — 12 to 13 percent; restaurants, grocery stores, and warehouses fell in the mid-range of 20 to 25 percent; textile and clothes manufacturing and other services hit 40 percent; and a whopping 66 percent of child care workers endured minimum wage violations, and 90 percent put up with overtime violations.
Race and gender played big roles. Women saw minimum wage violations at significantly higher rates than men. Wage theft was three times higher for blacks than for whites, and highest of all for Latinos. Employees at smaller businesses were more at risk, as well as employees with less education — though wage theft happens often even to the college educated.
Total wage theft in just those three cities amounted to almost $3 billion annually. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that if the patterns the study found are generalizable for the entire country, wage theft is $50 billion a year.
The Department of Labor only has 1,000 to 1,100 staff members looking into violations of wage and hour laws for the entire country. The Obama administration has requested an increase in funding for enforcement at least three times, but Congress has denied them. Wage theft is usually treated as a civil matter or dealt with by fines, and employers very rarely go to jail for it — a Papa John's franchise owner made headlines in 2015 when he was sentenced to a mere 60 days.
Compare that to the thousands of poor and non-white Americans who spend months, years, or even their entire lives in prison for petty theft or drug possession.
Prosecutors and labor groups seem to be getting more aggressive about pursuing wage theft. And several senators are pushing a bill to increase staffing and funding to go after wage theft, and to crank up penalties, regulations, and recovery of back pay.
But for now the consequences remain paltry. And the crime spree continues.
Editor's note: A previous version of this article misstated a legal category. It has since been corrected. We regret the error.

https://twitter.com/Sarah_Smarsh/status/769662009700868096

Quote from: Father Jape on 28-08-2016, 09:39:02
https://twitter.com/Sarah_Smarsh/status/769662009700868096

ovo je gore od onih belih majica koje je Kanje Vest dizajnirao.

 The White House is planning to let more foreign entrepreneurs work in the U.S.

Quote

The move, which won't require congressional approval, allows people to stay up to five years, provided their startup has significant U.S. investment. It could soon get a lot easier for foreigners to come to the U.S. to grow their startup.
After failing to get Congress to pass a "startup visa" as part of broad immigration reform, the Obama administration is moving ahead with an alternative that would allow overseas entrepreneurs to live in the U.S. for up to five years to help build a company.
Under a federal rule being formally proposed on Friday, the Department of Homeland Security would be empowered to use its existing authority to allow entrepreneurs to legally work in the country for two years, possibly followed by a one-time three-year extension. While the public will have 45 days to comment, the rules aren't subject to congressional approval.
Already speaking out in favor of the new rules is PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who moved to the U.S. from the Soviet Union in 1991.
     "I believe that the most promising entrepreneurs from around the world should have the same opportunity I had — the chance to deliver on their potential, here in America," Levchin said in an email released by the White House.
To be eligible to work in the U.S. under the new rule, the foreigner would have to own at least 15 percent of a U.S.-based startup, have a central role in its operations and have "potential for rapid business growth and job creation."
That last qualification could be satisfied by having at least $100,000 in government grants or at least $345,000 in investment from U.S. investors with a track record of backing successful companies. Those who partially satisfy those requirements could still be allowed in with additional evidence of the company's growth potential.
     The change to federal law follows a separate move by financial processing firm Stripe that lets startups incorporate in the U.S. while employees remain based overseas. That program, still in beta, was designed to make it easier for foreign startups to get capital by being based in the U.S.
The move also comes amid a continued debate over what broader changes should be made to immigration law — a dialogue that has stalled amid partisan differences. Creating a "startup visa" was part of the administration's immigration reform bill which passed the Senate in 2014.
"While there is no substitute for legislation, the administration is taking the steps it can within existing legal authorities to fix as much of our broken immigration system as possible," administration officials wrote in a blog post.

Članak je star tri godine ali nema veze:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/jaron_lanier_the_internet_destroyed_the_middle_class/

 Pamela Anderson Warns in Op-Ed That Porn 'Is a Public Hazard of Unprecedented Seriousness' 

Quote
Pamela Anderson is taking a stance. The former Playboy model, 49, teamed up with Rabbi Schmuley Boteach to pen an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal to warn about the "addictive dangers of pornography" on Wednesday, August 31.
PHOTOS: Sexiest Magazine Covers of All Time
In it, the two argue that porn has a "corrosive effect on a man's soul and on his ability to function as a husband, and by extension, as father."

"This is a public hazard of unprecedented seriousness given how freely available, anonymously accessible and easily disseminated pornography is nowadays," the pair continued. "How many families will suffer? How many marriages will implode? How many talented men will scrap their most important relationships and careers for a brief onanistic thrill?"
The opinion piece comes just days after disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner was caught in yet another sexting scandal. His wife, Huma Abedin — who works on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign and with whom he shares a young son — then announced on Monday, August 29, that she was separating from her husband of six years.
PHOTOS: Stars Go Nude on Twitter and Instagram
"If anyone still doubted the devastation that porn addiction wreaks on those closest to the addict, behold the now-shattered marriage of Mr. Weiner and Huma Abedin, a breakup that she initiated ... in shock at the disgraced ex-congressman's inclusion of their 4-year-old son in one lewd photo that he sent to a near-stranger," Anderson and Boteach wrote.

But the duo didn't end there. They also warned that children raised in the current digital environment will "become adults inured to intimacy and in need of even greater graphic stimulation. They are the crack babies of porn."
So how to address this? According to Anderson and Boteach, "We must educate ourselves and our children to understand that porn is for losers — a boring, wasteful and dead-end outlet for people too lazy to rep the ample rewards of healthy sexuality."

PHOTOS: '90s Sitcom and TV Stars, Then & Now
The Canadian actress — who will next appear in the film version of Baywatch, the hit '90s show that launched her to stardom — is no stranger to adult material. In addition to posing for a total of 14 Playboy covers (including the magazine's January/February 2016 issue, its final nude issue), she also did a nude photo shoot for Paper's Girls Girls Girls issue this year to promote her collection of cruelty-free shoes. And in 1995, her private sex tape with then-husband Tommy Lee, which was made on their honeymoon, was stolen and leaked.